JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, .J.:- Gurdip Singh appellant was tried along with three others by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 13.8.1993, the trial Court acquitted the three co-accused of the appellant. However, the appellant was held guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for two months. 2. The appeal was filed through Shri M.L. Merchea, Advocate. The said counsel, unfortunately, passed away. Accordingly, notice was sent to the appellant. Even bailable warrants were issued. However, finding that the appellant was not being served, this Court directed the Registry to appoint an amicus curiae for appearing on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate was appointed as such to represent the appellant. 3. The occurrence in question ‘had taken place on 1.10.1990 at about 8.30 P.M., wherein Dhian Singh PW 2 was assaulted. The tour accused, including the appellant, met Dhian Singh near the park in the area of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. They asked him to throw a party to them. Niranjan Singh accused raised a lalkara to catch hold of Dhian Singh and not to spare him as he had earlier escaped from Makbulpura in the quarrel. Dhian Singh was caught hold by Sheela @ Kashmir Singh accused from his hair. Gurdip Singh appellant took out a daggar and gave a blow with the same in the chest of Dhian Singh below his left arm pit. The occurrence was witnessed by Bachan Singh and Amrik Singh, who were following Dhian Singh. They rescued him from the accused. 4. The injured was medico-legally examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar PW on 2.10.1990 at 9.15 P.M., who found the following injury on his person:­ “A stitched wound 2.9 cm. in length with two stitches in tact was present on the outer aspect of the left side of the chest, 6 cm. from the nipple.” After receiving the report of X-ray and Surgeon’s opinion, the aforementioned injury was declared dangerous to life. Weapon used was a pointed and the duration within 12 hours. 5. in length with two stitches in tact was present on the outer aspect of the left side of the chest, 6 cm. from the nipple.” After receiving the report of X-ray and Surgeon’s opinion, the aforementioned injury was declared dangerous to life. Weapon used was a pointed and the duration within 12 hours. 5. After receiving wireless message from SGTB Hospital, Amritsar, where Dhian Singh injured was admitted, Head Constable Amrik Singh went there on 1.10.1990 and sought an opinion from the doctor, who declared the injured unfit to make a statement. Position remained the same on 2.10.1990. 6. Head Constable Amrik Singh again visited the hospital on 4.10.1990, whereafter the doctor declared the injured fit to make a statement. Accordingly, Dhian Singh PW made statement Ex. PC on 4.10.1990 at 4.10 P.M. As the injured had been subjected to Surgeon’s opinion and X-ray examination, prima facie, offence under Section 323 IPC was made out. Therefore, DDR No. 13 dated 4.10.1990 was recorded. Later on, when the injury was declared dangerous to life, formal FIR Ex. PC/2 came to be recorded in Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar at 8.30 P.M. on 19.11.1990. 7. Gurdip Singh accused was also medico-legally examined by Dr. Ashok Kumar on 4.10.1990 at 2.30 P.M., who found as follows:- “1. A 1.7 cm. long stitched wound with two stitches in tact was present on the left side of the abdomen, 3.5 cm. above and lateral to the left anterior/superior iliac spine. 2. A 3 cm. long stitched wound with three stitches in tact was present on the back of left wrist joint.” 8. The nature of the injury, its probable duration and the weapon used were subjected to X-ray examination and progress notes. The doctor further stated that according to medico-legal report the injured arrived in the hospital at 11.55 P.M. on 1.10.1990 and he proved the copy of the medico legal report Ex.DA. He further stated that injury No.1 was caused with pointed weapon, while No.2 with sharp edged. He also stated that both these injuries were simple in nature and were caused within about 12 hours. 9. After the completion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, the accused were charged under Sections 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. He also stated that both these injuries were simple in nature and were caused within about 12 hours. 9. After the completion of the investigation and presentation of the challan, the accused were charged under Sections 307/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW2 Dhian Singh, PW3 Bachan Singh, PW4 HC Amrik Singh, PW5 SI Balraj Singh, PW6 Gian- Singh Shergill, PW7 Dr. Bhola Singh Sidhu and PW8 Rishi Ram, Draftsman. 11. The accused, however, denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded false implication. However, the appellant took up the following plea:­ “On 1.10.1990, Dhian Singh was playing cards with me at my house and won the game. He got infuriated over my victory and took out a knife from his pocket of his pant and gave me a knife blow in my abdomen and he gave second blow in my wrist joint. I also, in order to defend myself, snatched the knife and gave him blow. Even then he was giving me fist blows. I gave him knife blow in self-defence.” 12. The trial Court convicted the appellant as mentioned above but acquitted the other three accused. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant on the ground that the injuries found on the person of the appellant were not explained by the prosecution. The appellant had received two injuries, one of which was on the left side, of his abdomen. Such an injury could not be self suffered. In the absence of any explanation from the prosecution, genesis of the occurrence becomes doubtful and accordingly, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 14. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the two injuries found on the person of the appellant were declared simple in nature and, therefore, prosecution was not under an obligation to explain them. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence with their able assistance. 16. Though, none of the injuries found on the person of the appellant was either dangerous or grievous, yet a perusal of injury No.1 would show that the same was present on the left side of the abdomen. It was 1.7 cm. long and 3.5 cm. 16. Though, none of the injuries found on the person of the appellant was either dangerous or grievous, yet a perusal of injury No.1 would show that the same was present on the left side of the abdomen. It was 1.7 cm. long and 3.5 cm. above and lateral to the left anterior/superior iliac spine. Such an injury was the result of a pointed weapon. There is no opinion sought by the prosecution or any suggestion made to Dr. Ashok Kumar PW1 that injury No.1 on the person of the appellant could be either self-suffered or suffered from a friendly hand. It may be that the prosecution realised that the said injury was on a vital part. Of course, the other injury on the wrist joint of the left hand of the appellant was on a non-vital part and thus, could be self-suffered. Fact remains that there was a serious injury found on the person of the appellant, although the same was neither declared to be dangerous to life nor grievous in nature. When Dhian Singh PW2 was examined and asked about the injury on the person of the appellant, he was categoric to say that the appellant did not receive any injury in his presence. He also denied causing of any injury to the appellant. 17. The appellant, while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took up a specific plea that on 1.10.1990 he was playing cards with Dhian Singh injured. When the appellant won the game, Dhian Singh became infuriated and took out a knife from his pant’s pocket and gave a blow in his abdomen and another on his wrist joint. At that point of time, the appellant snatched the knife from the injured and in order to defend himself gave one blow. Even during that duration, the injured had been giving him fist blows. A perusal of the said stand taken by the appellant sufficiently explains the entire occurrence. The injury found on the person of Dhian Singh injured was explained by the appellant and so also his own injuries. On the other hand, there was neither any explanation about the injury on the person of the appellant in the FIR nor in the statement of Dhian Singh PW2, which he made in the Court. 18. The injury found on the person of Dhian Singh injured was explained by the appellant and so also his own injuries. On the other hand, there was neither any explanation about the injury on the person of the appellant in the FIR nor in the statement of Dhian Singh PW2, which he made in the Court. 18. The prosecution case rests upon the testimonies of Dhian Singh PW2 and his father Bachan Singh PW3 regarding the ocular account. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place in a public place, i.e., near a park in the area of Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar where there would be no dearth of public. Apart from Dhian Singh and Bachan Singh, Amrik Singh was also an eye-witness. Said Amrik Singh was cited as a witness by the prosecution but was not examined as a prosecution witness. Said Amrik Singh was an independent witness. On account of the prosecution not examining him, we are left with the testimonies of only relation witnesses, father and son. When the prosecution evidence regarding the occurrence consists testimonies of relation witnesses and there is no explanation from the prosecution-about the injuries found on the person of accused, the very genesis of the occurrence becomes doubtful. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the plea of the defence taken, by the accused was incorrect. The appellant had suffered an injury with a pointed weapon in his abdomen, besides an injury on his left wrist. To repel the attack, the appellant snatched the knife from Dhian Singh injured and caused one blow with the same in the exercise of his right of self-defence. For the reasons mentioned above, no implicit reliance can be placed upon the prosecution version. The appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC. His sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court is set aside. The Court records its appreciation for Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for his able assistance rendered to the Court in the disposal of the appeal. —————————————