JUDGMENT : (Per : K.J. Rohee, J.) 1. The appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.96/2000 decided on 30.11.2001. 2. On 5.4.2000 at 4.35 a.m. Sunil Bhaurao More (PW 7) came to Police Station, Bhadrawati and lodged oral report (Exh.39) to the effect that about eight days back because of some quarrel the appellant was abusing and threatening him and others. On 4.4.2000 around 9.30 p.m. PW 7 Sunil Bhaurao More and Sudhir Bapurao More were sitting in a cot. At that time the appellant went murmuring from the front of the house of Sunil More. Sunil More and Sudhir More did not say anything to him. Thinking that the appellant might have left the place, Sudhir More started going to his house. As soon as Sudhir More came out of the compound of the house of Sunil More, the appellant rushed there with a sharp weapon and gave a blow on the stomach of Sudhir More near the house of Baburao Pal. Sunil More apprehended the appellant. PW 8 Bandu alias Vilas Bapurao More, Baban Ghotkar, Surendra Ghotkar and Ambadas rushed there and beat the appellant. They removed Sudhir More by a Matador to the Hospital at Bhadrawati. The appellant was also taken in the Matador. Sudhir More was declared dead. The appellant disappeared from the Matador. The search of the appellant was taken but he was not found. On the basis of the said report Crime No.42/2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Bhadrawati. 3. PW 9 Dr. Suman Zurmure and PW 10 Dr. Malik Parmar, Medical Officers of Primary Health Centre, Bhadrawati conducted post-mortem examination. Besides two abrasions they found two stab wounds on left side of chest. In their opinion, the probable cause of death was multiple organ injuries caused by penetrating stab injuries to the chest. 4. On 5.4.2000 in the noon the appellant was arrested from Rural Hospital, Bhadrawati where he was taking treatment. His blood stained full-pant and shirt were seized. On 13.4.2000 a sword-stick having blood stains on its blade was discovered from the dilapidated cattle shed of Shankar Pal at the instance of the appellant. 4. On 5.4.2000 in the noon the appellant was arrested from Rural Hospital, Bhadrawati where he was taking treatment. His blood stained full-pant and shirt were seized. On 13.4.2000 a sword-stick having blood stains on its blade was discovered from the dilapidated cattle shed of Shankar Pal at the instance of the appellant. The report of the Chemical Analyser revealed that the blood group of deceased Sudhir More was .A. and that of the appellant is .B.; that the clothes of deceased Sudhir were stained with blood of group .A. and the clothes of the appellant were stained with blood of group .B.. It further revealed that human blood was found on the sword-stick (Gupti). However, the blood group thereof could not be determined. 5. The defence of the appellant is that he is a Barber. On the date of incident he had gone to the house of Bandu More (PW 8) to demand shaving charges. At that time Bandu abused the appellant and slapped him. The appellant also abused Bandu More. When the appellant started returning to his house, Bandu More (PW 8), Sunil More (PW 7) and Sudhir More (the deceased) rushed towards him and assaulted him. Because of the assault the appellant became unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself in the Matador. The appellant had sustained fractures to both hands. Sudhir More was taken to the Hospital. The appellant heard Bandu More (PW 8) saying that his brother died and so the appellant should be killed. On hearing this the appellant got down from the Matador, hid himself behind the Hospital and on the next day in the morning went to the Hospital. Thereafter the police shifted him to the Hospital at Chandrapur. After some days he was arrested and was taken to Bhadrawati. 6. The appellant examined his wife Savita as defence witness. According to her on 4.4.2000 around 9.00 p.m. when she was at her house, she heard some commotion. Upon hearing the commotion she rushed out of her house and went near the house of Pal. She saw Sudhir More and Sunil More assaulting her husband with sticks. Bandu More and Sunil More pushed her when she asked them as to why they were beating her husband. Her husband sustained injuries on his head and both of his hands were fractured. She saw Sudhir More and Sunil More assaulting her husband with sticks. Bandu More and Sunil More pushed her when she asked them as to why they were beating her husband. Her husband sustained injuries on his head and both of his hands were fractured. Thereafter Sudhir More and her husband were taken to the Hospital at Bhadrawati. On the next day she went to Hospital at Bhadrawati and was told that her husband was shifted to General Hospital at Chandrapur. Then she went to Chandrapur. Her husband was under treatment for about one month. 7. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of the allegations including PW 7 Sunil Bhaurao More and PW 8 Bandu alias Vilas Bapurao More. Besides them the Medical Officers, Panch witnesses and Investigating Officers were also examined. The trial Court held that Sudhir More met with homicidal death and that the appellant is guilty of murdering Sudhir More. Accordingly the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated earlier. The said conviction and sentence is under challenge. 8. We have heard Mr. Abhijit Wagh, Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. A.R. Taywade, APP for the respondent/State. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It was urged by Mr. Wagh, the learned counsel for the appellant, that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses; that only the members of Shiv-sena have been examined by the prosecution; that the prosecution did not examine Baban Ghotkar who saw the alleged incident; that the evidence on record establishes that the appellant acted in right of private defence; that the alleged discovery of sword-stick at the instance of the appellant is not proved and that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. It was also urged by Mr. Wagh that the appellant sustained serious injuries, however, the prosecution did not explain injuries of the appellant. In the absence of such explanation the evidence of the prosecution witnesses will have to be discarded and the appellant will have to be acquitted. 10. Mrs. A.R. Taywade, the learned APP for the respondent/State, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment of conviction. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. In the absence of such explanation the evidence of the prosecution witnesses will have to be discarded and the appellant will have to be acquitted. 10. Mrs. A.R. Taywade, the learned APP for the respondent/State, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment of conviction. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. From the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of DW 1 Savita (the wife of the appellant), it would be seen that the presence of the appellant at the place and time of the incident in question is admitted. According to the prosecution the appellant assaulted Sudhir More with swordstick on his chest, whereas according to the appellant, when he had gone to the house of Bandu More (PW 8) for demanding shaving charges, the later abused and slapped him and when the appellant was returning to his house, Bandu More, Sunil More, Sudhir More and other two persons rushed towards him and assaulted him. With the result the appellant became unconscious. We will have to examine which of the above versions is true. 12. PW 7 Sunil More deposed that on 4.4.2000 around 9.15 pm, he and Sudhir More were sitting at the door of his house. At that time the appellant having sword-stick passed twice from the road in front of the house of Sunil More. The appellant was abusing Sudhir More and said that he would kill somebody. Thereafter when Sudhir More left the place, the appellant ran after him. When Sudhir More went near the house of Baburao Pal, the appellant reached there and assaulted Sudhir More. The appellant inflicted 2-3 blows of sword-stick. PW Sunil More saw the assault from a distance of 4-5 ft. PW Sunil More caught the appellant. Bandu alias Vilas Bapurao More, Ambadas and Baban Ghotkar also came there. Sudhir More fell down. Sudhir More had become unconscious in an injured condition. Sudhir More and the appellant were taken to Bhadrawati by Matador. Around 4.45 am PW Sunil More lodged report (Exh.39). 13. During cross examination certain omissions were brought on record. Bandu alias Vilas Bapurao More, Ambadas and Baban Ghotkar also came there. Sudhir More fell down. Sudhir More had become unconscious in an injured condition. Sudhir More and the appellant were taken to Bhadrawati by Matador. Around 4.45 am PW Sunil More lodged report (Exh.39). 13. During cross examination certain omissions were brought on record. They are to the effect that PW Sunil More and Sudhir More were sitting at the door of his house; that the appellant abused in front of the house of Sunil More twice with sword-stick in his hand; that the appellant was abusing Sudhir More saying that he would kill someone; that because of the blows of sword-stick given by the appellant, Sudhir More fell down; that when people gathered on the spot, Sunil More left the appellant and went towards the injured Sudhir More and that there was light of electricity on the spot. All these omissions are not material so as to affect the credibility of the testimony of PW Sunil More. 14. The evidence of PW 8 Bandu More (the real brother of deceased Sudhir More) shows that on 4.4.2000 in the evening he was lying in the courtyard of his house and at that time the appellant passed by the road in front of his house. The appellant asked PW Bandu More whether he was sleeping and PW Bandu replied that he was just lying. After sometime the appellant again came in front of the house of Bandu and called him. Bandu refused to go to the appellant and asked the appellant to come to him. The appellant, however, did not come to PW Bandu and went ahead. After sometime Bandu heard shouts and hence he went to the spot. Bandu saw that the appellant was having a sword-stick and PW Sunil More had caught hold of the appellant. PW Bandu also saw Sudhir More lying injured. Thereafter Sudhir More and the appellant were taken to the Hospital at Bhadrawati in a Matador. The Doctor declared Sudhir More as dead. By that time the appellant had disappeared from the Matador. 15. During cross examination PW Bandu denied that the appellant was working as Barber in the village. He denied that he used to go to the appellant for hair dressing. He denied that he had to pay charges to the appellant. The Doctor declared Sudhir More as dead. By that time the appellant had disappeared from the Matador. 15. During cross examination PW Bandu denied that the appellant was working as Barber in the village. He denied that he used to go to the appellant for hair dressing. He denied that he had to pay charges to the appellant. He denied that the appellant had come to his house for demanding the charges. He denied that he got annoyed with the accused because of the demand. He denied that he slapped the appellant and tried to catch him. He denied that Sunil More and Sudhir More ran after the appellant with sticks and assaulted him by sticks. He denied that the wife of the appellant was present at the time of the incident. He denied to have pushed the wife of the appellant. He denied that in the said scuffle Sudhir More sustained injuries and fell down. He denied that both the hands of the appellant were fractured in the alleged assault and that the appellant had become unconscious. 16. In the earlier part of the judgment we have referred to the testimony of DW Savita (the wife of the appellant). According to her, Sudhir More and Sunil More assaulted her husband with sticks and during the said assault, her husband sustained injuries on his head and both of his hands were fractured. She added that her husband was not doing anything and he was just asking not to beat. During cross examination she stated that she did not lodge any report against Bandu More and Sudhir More for assaulting her husband though she had been to Bhadrawati. 17. Mr. Wagh, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently urged that the evidence of PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More does not explain as to how the appellant was injured. Mr. Wagh pointed out that during cross examination PW 10 Dr. Malik Parmar deposed that on 5.4.2000 he had examined the appellant and noted contused lacerated wounds, abrasions and contusions on left eye brow index finger, left side lower lip, left side chest, arm and wrist. In order to ascertain the nature of injuries Dr. Parmar referred the appellant to General Hospital, Chandrapur for x-ray examination. Dr. Parmar opined that the probable cause of the injuries was hard and rough object. 18. Mr. In order to ascertain the nature of injuries Dr. Parmar referred the appellant to General Hospital, Chandrapur for x-ray examination. Dr. Parmar opined that the probable cause of the injuries was hard and rough object. 18. Mr. Wagh submitted that non-explanation by the prosecution of the injuries sustained by the appellant renders the testimony of PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More unreliable and that the trial Court should have disbelieved their evidence. He submitted that in such circumstance the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. In support of his submission Mr. Wagh relied on the following cases : (i) In Lakshmi Singh and others etc. .vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , it is held that : .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 circumstance 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.. (ii) In Jagdish .vrs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 , it is held that : .It is true that where serious injuries are found on the person of the accused, as a principle of appreciation of evidence, it becomes obligatory on the prosecution to explain the injuries, so as to satisfy the Court as to the circumstances under which the occurrence originated. But before this obligation is placed on the prosecution, two conditions must be satisfied : (1) that the injuries on the person of the accused must be very serious and severe and not superficial; (2) that it must be shown that these injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.. (iii) In State of Rajasthan .vrs. Madho and another, 1991 Cri.L.J . 1343 , it is held that : 'Benefit of doubt . (iii) In State of Rajasthan .vrs. Madho and another, 1991 Cri.L.J . 1343 , it is held that : 'Benefit of doubt . Injuries sustained by accused persons in same incident in which offences under Sections 302, 326 of the Indian Penal Code are alleged to have been committed by them . Prosecution witnesses failing to explain those injuries . Their testimony giving impression that they are suppressing some part of incident . Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.. 19. It is true that the evidence of PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More is silent as to how the appellant sustained injuries of a serious nature like fracture of both of his hands. It is equally true that DW Savita (the wife of the appellant) who claims to be the eyewitness of the assault on her husband, also did not state as to how Sudhir More sustained injuries. On the contrary she stated that her husband did nothing. It may be noted that the clothes of Sudhir More and that of the appellant were stained with blood of their own group though PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More suppressed the circumstance in which the appellant was seriously injured. It may be noted that the report (Exh.39) lodged by PW 7 Sunil More at Police Station, Bhadrawati clearly shows that Sunil More, Bandu More, Baban Ghotkar, Surendra Ghotkar and Ambadas beat the appellant. It is apparent that firstly the appellant might have attacked Sudhir More and caused stab wounds. As rightly observed by the trial Court it appears highly improbable that the appellant assaulted Sudhir More in exercise of his right to private defence, because both his hands were fractured and in such condition he could not have assaulted Sudhir More. This clearly shows that firstly Sudhir More was assaulted by the appellant and thereafter others including PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More assaulted the appellant. At this juncture, it is important to note that DW Savita (the wife of the appellant) did not think it necessary to lodge report against the persons who assaulted her husband, obviously because she was aware that it was her husband who firstly assaulted Sudhir More and killed him. At this juncture, it is important to note that DW Savita (the wife of the appellant) did not think it necessary to lodge report against the persons who assaulted her husband, obviously because she was aware that it was her husband who firstly assaulted Sudhir More and killed him. In such circumstances the so called non explanation of the serious injuries of the appellant would not render the evidence of PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More untrustworthy and the appellant would not be entitled to claim benefit of doubt. 20. We do not find that the evidence of PW 7 Sunil More and PW 8 Bandu More can be disbelieved only because they are related to deceased Sudhir More or that all of them belong to a political party. In view of the direct evidence against the appellant the alleged discovery of the sword-stick by the appellant does not carry much importance. We are satisfied that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the murder of Sudhir More. We find that the findings recorded by the trial Court are well merited and have been arrived at after a careful, exhaustive and proper analysis of the evidence. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the order : The appeal is dismissed.