Judgment [Per Itajesh Tandon, J.) 1. Present appeal has been flied against the judgment and order dated 8-6-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated the fact giving rise to the present appeal are that on 2-6-1983 at about 4.00 PM, Komil Ram, Harish Ram, Jagdish and Smt. Munni Devi were sitting outside the house under a mango tree. At that time accused Megh Nath armed with a gun. and a belt of cartridges came there and started filthy jocks with Smt. Munni Devi. When Jagdish objected the accused, exchange of hot words took place between Jagdish and accused Megh Nath. Accused loaded the gun and aimed on Jagdish. On seeing this Jagdish ran away from that place and accused chased him. Komil and Harish Ram also followed them. They were about 100 paces behind accused Megh Nath. After covering a distance for about one furlong Jagdish stopped and opened the buttons of his shirt and stated something to the accused. On this the accused fired gun shot and Jagdish succumbed to the sunshot injury instantaneously. Accused Megh Nath then ran away. Komil Ram and Harish chased him and with the help of Jwala Singh and Dalip apprehended him . 3. Komil Ram got a report (Ex.ka-1) of the incident scribed by Harish Ram and submitted the same to Police Station, Khatima at 5.30 PM on the same day. On the basis of written report check report was prepared and a case under section 3-02 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Mangia Nand Khanduri. He visited the place of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body. He sealed the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. He took the gun and its licence in his custody and prepared Fard EX.ka-6. He also seized sample of plain earth and blood-stained earth and prepared Fard Ex. ka-7. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan EX.ka-8. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet EX.ka-9. 4. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Dr. ka-7. The Investigating Officer also prepared site plan EX.ka-8. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet EX.ka-9. 4. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Dr. B.K. Srivastava (P.WA) was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Pilibhit who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body. He found the following ante mortem injuries : 1. Gun shot wound of entry 2cm. x 2 cm. on the right side of chest, circular in shape, 7 cm. away from the right nipple at 2 O'clock position. There was scorching blackening and tattooing around the wound. 2. Five exit gun shot wounds of each 1 cm. x 1 cm. in size, circular in shape, upon the back in an area of 10 cm. x 12 cm. in the middle of the back. 6. On internal examination the doctor found that pleura, right lung, pericardium and heart were lacerated. 7. P.W.1 Komil Ram, has stated the entire facts of occurrence in his statements. P.W.2 Dalip Singh and P.W.3 Jwala Singh are also eyewitnesses of the occurrence and they supported the statement of P.W.1 Komil Ram. The prosecution also examined P.W.S H.C. Jagat Singh and P.W.6 S.I Mangala Nand Khanduri. Sri Jugal Kishor Saxena, Deputy Jailer and Sri K.B. Srivastav were examined as Court witnesses. 8. The accused in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 9. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on record held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the accused. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused- appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate and have gone through the record and the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. 11. This is a case of direct evidence, in which eyewitnesses of the occurrence have consistently deposed that accused Megh Nath shot dead Jagdish Singh by his licensed gun on 2-6-1983 at about 4-00 PM. To prove its case the prosecution examined three eyewitnesses at all. P.W.1, Komil Ram is the informant and he stated the entire prosecution story as narrated above. To prove its case the prosecution examined three eyewitnesses at all. P.W.1, Komil Ram is the informant and he stated the entire prosecution story as narrated above. This witness has unequivocally stated that it was the accused Megh Nath who fired gun shot on deceased Jagdish by his gun. Regarding the main occurrence this witness stated as under: 12. P.W.2 Dilip Singh corroborated his statement so far as the place, time and manner of the occurrence is concerned. He stated that on 2-6-1983 he along with Jwala Singh was coming back from Majhola Sugar Factory to his village and it was about 4 PM when they had reached near the grove of Badal Singh they saw accused Meghnath armed with a gun and was chasing deceased Jagdish Singh. Jagdish reached stopped upon the passage which goes to village Patia, between the plots of Chottey and Ram Lal and accused Megh Nath also reached near him. Some exchange of words took place between them and Jagdish opened the buttons of his shirt and accused Megh Nath fired gun shot on his chest due to which he died at the spot. This witness states as under : 13. P.W.3 Jwala Singh has stated that on the day of incident he was coming to his home from Sugar Mill. When they reached near the grove, he saw that Jagdish came on the road after drinking water at the tube-well of Chotey Lal. This witness further stated that Megh Nath armed with a gun came there and stopped Jagdlsh Singh. Megh Nath stated that where would he now escape. Jagdish Singh opened the button of his shirt and Megh Nath fired gunshot on his chest by a close range. This witness stated as under : 14. He stated that thereafter Megh Nath fled away. He was chased by Komil Ram, Harish Ram and Dilip Singh and was overpowered after covering a distance of about 200-300 paces. The statement of Jawala Singh is different to P.W.1 Komil Ram and P.W.2 Dalip Singh only to the extent that he states that he saw Jagdish Prasad going towards the road after drinking water on the tube-well but such contradiction makes no difference as far as the case of the prosecution is concerned as there is no difference in the statements of the witness regarding the main occurrence. 15. 15. However, there is no contradiction in the statements of P.W.1 Komil Ram and P.W.2 Dalip Singh. Both these witnesses have consistently stated that it was accused Megh Nath who fired gun shot on Jagdish Singh and thereafter they overpowered the accused by chasing him. Thus the prosecution has amply established its case against the accused by the direct evidence of eyewitnesses. 16. The medical evidence and forensic examination reports also supports the version of the prosecution that the death of Jagdish Singh was caused due to gunshot. 17. In the trial Court the accused tried to set up a case of self-defence. On the similar line before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted gun fire shot by the accused and death of Jagdish Singh by gunshot injury. However, he has vehemently argued that the act was done by the accused in self-defence. 18. A lengthy cross examination was made from P.W.1 Komil Ram and a suggestion was put to him that Jagdish gave a knife blow on the head of accused Megh Nath and in self-defence Megh Nath fired with his gun. The suggestion was given as under : 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out the statement of P.W.5 H.C. Jagtar Singh, who admitted In his cross examination that when the accused was admitted at Police Lockup there was Injury on his body and that fact was mentioned In EX.Ka-5. In EX.Ka-5 it has been mentioned that there was injury on the right eyebrow of accused, which was bleeding and accused was complaining pain In his body. The accused in his statement under section 313 neither admitted gun fire by him in self defence nor stated that any injury caused to him by deceased Jagdish Singh. However, the trial Court has examined Jugal Klshor Saxena, Deputy Jailer as C.W.1 who stated that at the time of admission of accused in the jail entry In medical column of admission register was made by Compo-under Shanker Dutt Sharma and nil was written in that column. C.W.2 K.B. Srivastava has also stated that no medical report of accused Megh Nath was filed in the jail record. It appears that some minor and superficial injury was caused on the eyebrow of accused when he was overpowered by the witnesses, which was mentioned in EX.ka-5 by the P.W.S H.C. Jagtar Singh. C.W.2 K.B. Srivastava has also stated that no medical report of accused Megh Nath was filed in the jail record. It appears that some minor and superficial injury was caused on the eyebrow of accused when he was overpowered by the witnesses, which was mentioned in EX.ka-5 by the P.W.S H.C. Jagtar Singh. P.W.1 Komil Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that they gave some slaps to the accused. He stated as under: 20. Thus It is clear that there might have 'some minor Injury on the eyebrow of the accused., which was bleeding at the time when he, was admitted at the police station but later on it had become insignificant. In any view of the matter it was not a knife injury. The accused has not lodged any cross case nor got him medically examined. ' 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to explain the injury on the person of the accused and non-explanation of the injuries of the accused is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 1995 Cr. L.J. 3227 (SC) Sukh Dev Singh vs. State of Punjab, where it has been held that injuries of accused must be explained and the plea of private defence should not lightly ignored. 22. Further the learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on AIR 1976 (SC) 966 Pratap vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1997 Cr. L.J. 219 (SC) Periasami and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 552 Dev Rak and others vs. State of H.P. and 2001 (43) ACC 922 (Allahabad High Court) Amar Chand and others vs. State of U.P. where the similar proposition of law has, been given. 23. L.J. 219 (SC) Periasami and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 552 Dev Rak and others vs. State of H.P. and 2001 (43) ACC 922 (Allahabad High Court) Amar Chand and others vs. State of U.P. where the similar proposition of law has, been given. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant cited 2003 (2) J.Cr.C. 1182 (SC) State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal & others, in which the Apex Court referred the case of Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1281, it has been held in that case as under : “……where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in untrue; and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants......in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstances from which the court can draw the following inferences: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries. on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.... (However) there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries." 24. But the facts of the present case are not similar. But the facts of the present case are not similar. Here the injury of the accused is minor and superficial and accused has not come up with a cross case in self-defence. 25. The pleas of self-defence can only be taken in a particular set of circumstances as held by the Apex court in 2004 (4) Crimes 310 (SC) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh, as under : "In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. Similar view was expressed by this court in Biran Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1975 SC 87) (See Wassan Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 1 SCC 458, Sekar alias Raja Sekharan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. (2002 (8) SCC 354). 26. In 2005 SCC (Cri.) 178 Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P. the apex court held that failure to explain injuries on accused would not affect the prosecution case if it is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence, more so when injuries are of simple and superficial nature. The apex Court has held as under : "Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it out weights the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries." 27. In the instant case there is consistent, cogent and creditworthy evidence against the accused and the injury to the person of the accused was minor and superficial which lost significant. Any medical officer neither examined it, nor it was observed when the accused was admitted in jail. Thus no benefit of non-explanation of the injury on the person of accused goes to the defence. 28. In the instant case only suggestion was given to one of the witness P.W.1 Komil Ram. The accused neither set up a case of self-defence in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. nor adduced any evidence in defence in support of his version of self-defence. 29. 28. In the instant case only suggestion was given to one of the witness P.W.1 Komil Ram. The accused neither set up a case of self-defence in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. nor adduced any evidence in defence in support of his version of self-defence. 29. Thus in view of the discussion made above, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held the accused guilty for the offence of murder. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal has no force and deserves to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is upheld. 31. let a copy of this judgement along with the lower court's record be sent to the trial Court for necessary action.