Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents Raj Kumar, Mohinder Singh, Jarnail Singh, Thakur Singh, Gurdev Singh. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 2.6.1992 at 4-15 P.M., Bhag Singh PW-3 was getting ready to go to his duty. His cousin Bhupinder Singh PW-4, his uncle Mewa Singh and Narata Ram and Rachna Ram were standing in the street. They were discussing stoppage of construction of the street at the instance of Punjab Singh accused and his sons. The dispute was that Bhupinder Singh PW-4 wanted the street to be constructed along the side of the house of Punjab Singh while the accused were opposed to such construction. Accused Raj Kumar armed with a barchha, Gurdev armed with gandasi, Jarnail Singh armed with a saria, Mohinder Singh armed with a handle of machine and Thakur Singh armed with a lathi, came there. Accused Jarnail Singh said that they will shed blood of the complainant party. Jarnail Singh gave blow with an iron rod on the shoulder of Mewa Singh, Gurdev Singh gave gandasi blow on the head and left eye of Bhupinder Singh. Darbara Singh intervened to save the injured, but Raj Kumar gave a barchha blow on his chest of Darbara Singh and Thakur Singh gave a lathi blow on the head of Bhag Singh. Darbara Singh and Mewa Singh fell down. Mohinder Singh inflicted blows with handle on Mewa Singh. Mohinder Singh, Thakur Singh and Jarnail Singh inflicted injuries on Darbara Singh when he was lying on the ground. Punjab Singh accused also came to the spot with a lathi in his hand and gave a lalkara that the blood of the complainants be flown in the drain. He gave lathi blows on the back side, left arm and left leg of Bhupinder Singh. On alarm being raised, Hazara Singh and others came on the spot. Narata Ram and Hazara Singh took the injured to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. Darbara Singh was declared dead and Bhag Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Mewa Singh were admitted to the hospital. On receiving message from the hospital, SI Kewal Krishan PW-10 came to the hospital and recorded statement of Bhag Singh PW-3, which led to registration of FIR. He prepared inquest report and made application for post-mortem examination of Darbara Singh. Then he went to the spot and prepared rough site plan. On receiving message from the hospital, SI Kewal Krishan PW-10 came to the hospital and recorded statement of Bhag Singh PW-3, which led to registration of FIR. He prepared inquest report and made application for post-mortem examination of Darbara Singh. Then he went to the spot and prepared rough site plan. The accused were arrested and on their disclosure-statements, weapons of offence were recovered. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. 3. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and gave counter-version that Raj Kumar and Mohinder Singh were sitting at their house on 2.6.1992 at 4/4-30 P.M. They heard cries of Jarnail Singh from the side of the house of Saroop Singh. They reached there and saw that Jarnail Singh accused was being beaten by PW-3 Bhag Singh, PW-4 Bhupinder Singh, PW-5 Hazara Singh and PW-5/A Jarnail Singh, who were armed with rods, gandasis and barchhas. Raj Kumar and Mohinder Singh tried to rescue Jarnail Singh. Since the complainant party assaulted them with their respective weapons, they acted in self-defence. Darbara Singh received injury by fall on a peg. Thakur Singh, Gurdev Singh and Punjab Singh were not present at the spot. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Reasons given by the trial Court can be summed up as under :- (i) While Darbara Singh died and Bhupinder Singh, Mewa Singh and Bhag Singh received injuries from the side of complainants, the accused also received injuries, which they claimed to be in self-defence. Injury No. 1 on Darbara Singh was fatal. It was doubtful that the said injury was caused in the manner alleged by the weapon barchha; (ii) The prosecution version failed to explain the injuries found on the accused persons i.e. Mohinder Singh, Raj Kumar and Jarnail Singh, who were also medically examined by the same doctor i.e. Dr. M.K. Garg PW-7. Number of injuries received by the accused were ten, which included a fracture and injuries on vital parts and which could not be self-suffered; (iii) Cross-case had not been registered and thus, investigation was not fair; (iv) Version of PW-3 Bhag Singh and PW-4 Bhupinder Singh was not reliable as they failed to explain the injuries caused to the accused. Number of injuries received by the accused were ten, which included a fracture and injuries on vital parts and which could not be self-suffered; (iii) Cross-case had not been registered and thus, investigation was not fair; (iv) Version of PW-3 Bhag Singh and PW-4 Bhupinder Singh was not reliable as they failed to explain the injuries caused to the accused. The complainants could, thus, be the aggressors and the accused could have acted in self- defence; 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that cogent version was given by prosecution witnesses, particularly Bhag Singh PW-3 and Bhupinder Singh PW-4 who were both injured eye witnesses, which could not be rejected merely on the ground that the prosecution did not explain injuries found on the person of the accused and thus, the view taken by the trial Court was perverse. 8. Learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submitted that having regard to the nature and extent of injuries received by the accused persons and that said injuries having not at all been mentioned in the case of the prosecution and extent of such injuries having been duly established on record, the view taken by the trial Court was a possible view. 9. Before we go into rival contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to medical evidence. 10. PW-2 Dr. Ashwani Kumar Kashyap conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Darbara Singh and found following injuries :- "1. A lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm elliptical in shape on right side of chest on anterio lateral aspect. 2. An abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm was present on bridge of nose. 3. An abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm present on back of left elbow. 4. An abrasion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm was present on left knee joint." 11. PW-7 Dr. M.K. Garg medically examined Bhupinder Singh and found following injuries :- 1) Incised wound in the fronto-parietal region size 4 cm x 1 cm skin deep, fresh bleeding was present. 2) Lacerated wound on the fore-head horizontally placed just above the right eye-brow. Size 5 cm x 0.5 cm fresh bleeding was present. PW-7 Dr. M.K. Garg medically examined Bhupinder Singh and found following injuries :- 1) Incised wound in the fronto-parietal region size 4 cm x 1 cm skin deep, fresh bleeding was present. 2) Lacerated wound on the fore-head horizontally placed just above the right eye-brow. Size 5 cm x 0.5 cm fresh bleeding was present. 3) Lacerated wound left parieto occipital region curved size 6 x 1 cm skin deep fresh bleeding was present." He found following injuries on Mewa Singh :- 1) Abrasion left scapular region linear size 10 x 0.2 cm. 2) Incised wound left frontal region size 3 x 1 cm skin deep. 3) Lacerated wound near injury No. 2 in the frontal region 1 x 0.5 cm. skin deep. 4) Incised wound left parieto occipital region. Curved size 5 x 1 cm. skin deep. 5) Complaining of pain left shoulder. However, no external mark of injury was seen. 6) A lacerated wound right fore-arm laterally size 6 x 2 cm curved. X-ray were advised for all the injuries" The injuries found on the person of Bhag Singh are as under :- "1) Complaining of pain left scapular region. However no external mark of injury was seen. 2) Lacerated wound in the occipital region size 4 x 1 cm skin deep." The injuries found on Mohinder Singh accused are as under : "1) Incised wound skin deep in the right fronto parietal region, size 5 x 1 cm. Fresh bleeding was present. 2) Incised wound left parietal region, size 4.5 x 1 cm. skin deep. 3) Reddish contusion left thigh over an area of 10 x 10 cm anterially, laterally and medially. 4) Two abrasions roughly circular 1 x 1 cm, on the back side of the each side at the level of upper end of the sacrum. 5) Multiple abrasions on both hands sizes variable between 0.5 x 0.5 cm. to 1 x 0.5 cm. x-ray were advised for all the injuries." The injuries found on Raj Kumar are as under:- "1) Incised would left frontal region size 3.1 cm. skin deep, fresh bleeding was present. X-ray were advised." The injuries found on Jarnail Singh are as under :- 1) Complaining of pain left hand, swelling and tenderness present diffusely. 2) Contusion 6 x 3 cm. reddish is colour on right scapular region. 3) Lacerated wound right parieto fronto region, size 7 x 1 cm. skin deep, fresh bleeding was present. X-ray were advised." The injuries found on Jarnail Singh are as under :- 1) Complaining of pain left hand, swelling and tenderness present diffusely. 2) Contusion 6 x 3 cm. reddish is colour on right scapular region. 3) Lacerated wound right parieto fronto region, size 7 x 1 cm. 4) Incised would left parietal region size 3 x 1 cm. skin deep." 12. A perusal of above medical evidence shows that the injuries received by Mohinder Singh, Raj Kumar and Jarnail Singh include incised wounds on vital parts of the body. The said accused were examined simultaneously with the complainant party. The prosecution completely failed to explain the said injuries. 13. In these circumstances, view taken by the trial Court is certainly a possible view. 14. We are conscious of the legal position that mere failure to explain injuries on the accused is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, but where injuries are serious and caused at the same time and evidence comprises partisan witnesses and the defence gives version which competes in probabilities with the version given by the prosecution, non-explanation of injuries assumes significance. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Takhji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, 2001(2) RCR(Criminal) 725 : AIR 2001 SC 2328. 15. We are also conscious of the legal position that onus to establish right of private defence is on the accused. The said right does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence. Mere fact that there were injuries on the bodies of the accused persons, is not conclusive of existence of right of private defence. The defence has to establish that the said injuries probabalise the existence of right of private defence. For claiming right of private defence and explaining causing of death, the accused has to show grounds for apprehension that death or grievous hurt would have been caused to him. The right lasts so long as the apprehension lasts. A person apprehending death or injury cannot weigh his action in golden scales. To determine number of injuries required to disarm the assailant, situation has to be pragmatically viewed. The law in this regard has been reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh, 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 52 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 149 : AIR 2005 SC 1186. 16. A person apprehending death or injury cannot weigh his action in golden scales. To determine number of injuries required to disarm the assailant, situation has to be pragmatically viewed. The law in this regard has been reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh, 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 52 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 149 : AIR 2005 SC 1186. 16. In the present case, the fact that prosecution is wholly silent about the manner in which the injuries were caused to the accused and the fact that accused were medically examined simultaneously and number of injuries were found on them, which included sharp-edged injuries on vital parts and further fact that the investigating agency did not look into the cross-version at all and that the accused specifically put forward the right of private defence, by giving a counter version that it was the complainant side which attacked the accused side with deadly weapons and they acted in self-defence, possibility of which could not be ruled out, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the view taken by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.