Judgement This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.07.1990 passed by the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in ST. No.271 of 1989, whereby both the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years under section 304 IPC read with 34 IPC. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 21.08.1988 at about 2 p.m. Smt. Krishna Devi (deceased) was removing soil which had fallen down from a wall nearby her house situated in Mohalla Niwadmandi, P.S. Jaspur. Appellants Gopali Singh and Prem Singh objected her to remove the soil. On this, a scuffle took place between the parties. Accused Gopali Singh and Prem Singh beat her with a wooden stick (danda) due to which Krishna Devi had sustained injuries on her person. When her brother Pritam Singh tried to intervene in the melee he was also beaten by the accused persons. In the meantime, Banwari PW5, the father of the deceased and other witnesses reached at the spot at the time of incident and they saw the incident. The witnesses intervened in the melee and tried to save the injured persons from the assaults of accused persons. Thereafter, the report was lodged at the police station on the date of incident of a non-cognizable offence. Injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical treatment. The medical examination of Smt. Krishna Devi and Pritam Singh PW4 was conducted by Dr. G. S. Joshi at about 4:10 and 4:25 pm respectively on the date of incident. Smt. Krishna Devi was referred to for X-ray and after conducting X-ray a supplementary report was submitted in which one injury was found grievous in nature. On 23.08.1988 at about 11:50pm Smt. Krishna Devi succumbed to her injuries in the civil hospital, Jaspur. Thereafter, the police converted the case under section 304 IPC on 24.08.1988. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted before the court concerned. 3. After submission of charge-sheet the appellants-accused were committed to the court of Session for trial and the trial court framed charges against the accused persons. They denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses. Dr. G. S. Joshi PW1 was the medical officer, who medically examined Smt. Krishna Devi and Pritam Singh. They denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses. Dr. G. S. Joshi PW1 was the medical officer, who medically examined Smt. Krishna Devi and Pritam Singh. He proved the injury reports Ex.ka. 1 and 2. Jagdish Singh PW2 is a witness of inquest report. Constable Naubat Singh PW3 took the dead body of the deceased in a sealed bundle to the hospital for post-mortem. Pritam Singh PW4, brother of the deceased is the injured eye-witness of the incident. Banwari PW5, father of the deceased reached immediately at the spot at the time of incident. He is the eye-witness of the incident. R. M. Mishra PW6 is the investigating Officer of this case and he investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. 5. The accused persons were examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the offence. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to the enmity with the complainant. Appellant-Gopali Singh has further stated that the complainant party set fire his house and caused injuries on Maya Devi, Har Devi and Prem Singh. 6. The appellants have also produced the injury reports of Smt. Har Devi, Prem Singh and Km. Murti (Ex.kha. 1, 2 and 3 respectively) in support of their defence. 7. The accused-appellants in the trial eventually were convicted and sentenced by the trial court as mentioned above. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that it is not disputed that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries sustained by her on the date and time of the occurrence. Dr. G. S. Joshi PW1, Medical Officer examined Krishna Devi at 4 : 10p.m. on the date of incident found the following injuries on her person :- 1. L.W. 9 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on the left fronto parietal region of skull. 7 cm above from (L) eyebrows and 8 cm above from pinna of (L) ear. Fresh bleeding present. Fresh bleeding present from both the nostrils. 2. Contused swelling 5 cm x 5 cm on left side of face on both the (L) upper and lower eyelids. Colour red. 3. x bone deep on the left fronto parietal region of skull. 7 cm above from (L) eyebrows and 8 cm above from pinna of (L) ear. Fresh bleeding present. Fresh bleeding present from both the nostrils. 2. Contused swelling 5 cm x 5 cm on left side of face on both the (L) upper and lower eyelids. Colour red. 3. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm just over the back of neck at C-7 spinous process. Colour red. 4. Contusion 2 cm x 1.5 cm at the medial angle of Rt. scapula. Colour red. The Medical Officer has opined that all the injuries were caused by some blunt and hard object. The duration of injuries was fresh. Injury No.1 was kept under observation and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Dr. G. S. Joshi PW1 has proved the injury report of Smt. Krishna Devi (Ex.ka.1). 10. Smt. Krishna Devi succumbed to her injuries on 23.07.1988 in the hospital. Dr. G. S. Joshi (PW1), Medical Officer conducted the post-mortem of deceased on 24.08.1988 at 4p.m. and found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :- (i) Contusion left upper and lower eye lids, (ii) Stitched wound over left side above 8cm ear in bleeding both ears, (iii) Abrasion about 1.5cm x 1cm over post part of left shoulder. (iv) Abrasion about 1cm x 0.75cm over post part of right shoulder. The medical officer has opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to coma resulting from head injury. He has opined that the injury Nos. 1 and 3 were caused by some blunt and hard object. The duration of injuries was fresh. Thus, it is amply established that the deceased met a homicidal death on account of ante-mortem injuries sustained by her on the date of occurrence. 11. It is also not disputed that Pritam Singh PW4 also sustained injuries on the same time and date. Pritam Singh PW4 was medically examined by Dr. G. S. Joshi PW1, medical officer on 21.08.1988 at 4:25pm. The medical officer found the following injuries on the person, of injured-Pritam Singh PW4 :- 1. Contused swelling 1.5 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect of Rt. lower lip. Colour red. 2. Abraded swelling 4 cm x 3 cm. on right parieto-temporal region of skull 4.5 cm above the pinna of Rt. ear. Fresh oozing of blood present. 3. The medical officer found the following injuries on the person, of injured-Pritam Singh PW4 :- 1. Contused swelling 1.5 cm x 1 cm on outer aspect of Rt. lower lip. Colour red. 2. Abraded swelling 4 cm x 3 cm. on right parieto-temporal region of skull 4.5 cm above the pinna of Rt. ear. Fresh oozing of blood present. 3. Contused swelling 3 cm x 2 cm on the left/temporal region of skull 3.5 cm above the pinna of (L) ear. Colour red. 4. Abrasion 6 cm x 5 cm on the posterior aspect of right leg 10 cm proximal to the Rt. ankle joint. Fresh oozing of blood present. As per the opinion of doctor, injury Nos. 1 and 3 are caused by some blunt and hard object; injury Nos. 2 and 4 are caused by friction against some blunt object; the duration of the injuries were fresh; and all the injuries were simple in nature. 12. Now, I have to consider as to whether the appellants were responsible for inflicting injuries on the persons of Smt. Krishna Devi and Pritam Singh. The prosecution has examined six witnesses in all. There is direct evidence connecting the appellants-accused with the offence charged. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of eyewitnesses Pritam Singh PW4 (injured) and Banwari PW5. Pritam Singh PW4, who is an injured eye-witness of the incident has stated in his evidence that on 21.08.1988 at about 2 pm his sister Smt. Krishna Devi was removing soil which has fallen down from the wall. On this, appellants protested the removal of soil and stated her that the soil belongs to them. The altercations took place between them and thereafter the appellants struck the deceased with a wooden stick (danda) on her head and other parts of the body. Pritam Singh PW4 has further stated in his evidence that when he tried to intervene in the melee he was also beaten by the appellants. Banwari PW5, the father of the deceased himself and other witnesses reached at the spot. They intervened in the melee and escaped Smt. Krishna Devi from further beating. Thereafter, a report was lodged at the police station and the injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Ultimately, the deceased died on 23.08.1988 due to the injuries sustained by her on the date of incident. They intervened in the melee and escaped Smt. Krishna Devi from further beating. Thereafter, a report was lodged at the police station and the injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Ultimately, the deceased died on 23.08.1988 due to the injuries sustained by her on the date of incident. The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of Banwari PW5, who is the father of the deceased. He had given vivid details of the incident and corroborated the evidence of Pritam Singh PW4 on material points. It is pertinent to mention here that the presence of Injured eye-witness Pritam Singh PW4 cannot be discarded as he also received injuries in the incident. The presence of this injured eye-witness at the relevant time was explained and his evidence cannot be thrown out as unreliable or tainted. The injured eyewitness stands on a higher pedestal than ordinary witness. It is also well settled that the testimony of the injured eye-witness is sufficient to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. His testimony is credible and cogent. The presence of the injured eye-witness cannot be ruled out. The testimony of an injured eye-witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to his testimony that the witness was present during the occurrence. Moreover, the evidence of injured witness is also corroborated by the evidence of another eye-witness Banwari PW5. (Vide Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware and others, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1144 : (2003 Cri LJ 2340) and State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013 : (2004 Cri LJ 4878). 13. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants contended that the prosecution has not produced the independent witnesses to corroborate the factum of incident. It was further contended that it has come in the evidence that Naresh and Umesh were also present at the time of incident, but they were not produced before the court. It was further contended that Pritam Singh PW4 and Banwari PW5 are related to the deceased and as such their evidence should not be relied upon. It was further contended that these eye-witnesses of the incident are interested witnesses as they are related to the deceased. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. It was further contended that Pritam Singh PW4 and Banwari PW5 are related to the deceased and as such their evidence should not be relied upon. It was further contended that these eye-witnesses of the incident are interested witnesses as they are related to the deceased. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. The evidence of Pritam Singh PW4 and Banwari PW5 is consistent and nothing had been elicited from their cross examination which may render their evidence unreliable. They remained consistent in their cross-examination with regard to the factum of incident. So far as the contention regarding the interested or related witness is concerned, it is true that Pritam Singh PW4 and Banwari PW5 are related to the deceased, but the evidence of these eye-witnesses cannot be discarded on this ground alone. There is no rule of law or prudence which requires that the evidence of a close relation must be discarded for the simple reason i.e. he is related to the deceased. I have no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Similarly, being relative, it would be their endeavour to see that the real culprit is punished and they would not implicate wrong person in the crime, so as to allow the real culprit to escape unpunished. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In the case of State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 135 : (2003 Cri LJ 3892) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "8. We may also observe that the ground that the witnesses being close relatives and consequently, being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1953 SC 364 : (1953 Cri LJ 1465) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed : (AIR p. 366) :- 25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in - Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 : (1952 Cri LJ 547) (AIR at p. 59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel." 9. Again in Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965 (1) Cri LJ 226) this Court observed :- "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 14. So far as the contention that no independent witness was produced is concerned, it is not always necessary to multiply the evidence of the incident on the same point. It has to be seen what is the quality of the witnesses. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity, which is required. If the evidence available on record is otherwise satisfactory in nature and can be said to be trustworthy then increase in the number of witnesses cannot be the requirement of the case. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Moreover, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to unnecessary lengthy cross-examination. So, the witnesses avoid to come to the Court. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent and nothing had been elicited from their cross-examination which may render their evidence unreliable. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any force in the contentions advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants. 15. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further contended that there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants-accused tried to point out certain contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. After going the entire evidence, I am of the view that the contradictions pointed out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not material to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. A person cannot accurately recall a conversion and reproduce the very words used by him or heard by him. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. The witness cannot be expected to pose a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. When the occurrence is taken place the witnesses present at the spot never try to count the assault, their first priority would be to save the life of the injured. If the contradictions are there it does not affect the prosecution story, the courts should not take into account such minor discrepancies, which are bound to come in the truthful testimonies. The normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. The normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. I have gone through the entire evidence and the contradictions pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants are of no consequence. 16. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the I.O. did not seize blood-stained clothes of the deceased from the place of occurrence and it was not sent to the serologist for examination. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. This is only remissness on the part of the investigation. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If the ocular testimony is cogent and convincing there is no requirement to seek the corroboration from other evidence. This is a remissness on the part of the Investigating Officer, which does not help the appellants. The Apex Court has, while maintaining the conviction of the accused in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 1995 (5) SCC 518, 1995 SCC (Cri) 977 and 1995 CRI LJ 4173, observed :- "Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In case of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any Investigating Officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the Chaddi. That is the reason why we have said the investigation was slipshod and defective." 17. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others v. State of Punjab, 2004 (3) SCC 654 : (2004 Cri LJ 1807) that in the instant case, the High Court found several disturbing features which indicated how the investigating officer had made out a new case to save the accused persons and to implicate the complainant party. Hence, the High Court analyzed the evidence of the eye-witnesses with due care and caution. On finding the said evidence to be credible, the High Court upheld the conviction recorded by the trial court. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds (1) that the police after thorough investigation had concluded that it was the complainant party which caused the death of the deceased (ii) that the pellets, wads and cartridges were not recovered from the spot, (iii) that the weapons of assault and the pellets were not sent for ballistic examination, (iv) that the blood-stained earth was not sent for chemical examination (v) that many persons who could have thrown light on the incident had not been examined, and (vi) that the evidence being that of highly interested and inimical persons, should have been discarded. Dismissing the appeal, it was held by the Apex Court that even if the investigation is defective, that pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect. To do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation designedly defective. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 AIR SCW 44 : (2004 Cri LJ 758) has held as follows :- "32. The investigation was not foolproof but then defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of the prosecution case. 33. In Visveswaran v. State, 2003 (6) SCC 73 : (2003 Cri LJ 2548), this has held : Before we notice the circumstances proving the case against the appellant and establishing his identity beyond reasonable doubt, it has to be borne in mind that the approach required to be adopted by Courts in such cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved." Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants. 19. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants contended that the prosecution has not explained the injuries inflicted upon the accused-appellants. It was contended that injury reports Exs.kha.1 to 3 were filed before the trial court. It was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants. The prosecution has failed to explain injuries inflicted upon the appellants. As such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted on this score. Learned A.G.A. refuted the contention. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case the appellants are Gopali Singh and Prem Singh. The prosecution has produced three medical certificates of Smt. Har Devi, Prem Singh and Km. Murti Devi. The Medical Officer has found the following injuries on the person of Smt. Har Devi who was examined on 21.08.1988 at 4pm :- 1. Long contusion 14 cm x 2.5 cm on the back of chest extending on both the right and left side of chest. Colour red. Injury is 8 cm below from inferior angle of right scapula. 2. Contusion 8 cm. x 2cm on the back of (L) shoulder just over the spine of (L) scapula. Colour red. 3. Contused swelling 2 cm x 2 cm on the left parito-temporal region of skull 5cm above from (L) ear, colour red. Colour red. Injury is 8 cm below from inferior angle of right scapula. 2. Contusion 8 cm. x 2cm on the back of (L) shoulder just over the spine of (L) scapula. Colour red. 3. Contused swelling 2 cm x 2 cm on the left parito-temporal region of skull 5cm above from (L) ear, colour red. As per the opinion of doctor, all the injuries were caused by some blunt and hard object; the duration of the injuries were fresh; and all the injuries were simple in nature. 20. Accused Prem Singh was examined on 21.08.1988 at 3:30 p.m. by the medical officer, who found the following injuries on his person :- 1. L.W. 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the exterior aspect of (L) forearm 9 cm distal to (L) elbow joint. Fresh oozing of blood present. 2. Abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm on the back of Rt. arm 3 cm proximal from Rt. elbow joint fresh oozing and blood present. 3. Multiple abrasion in an area of 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the dorsal aspect of proximal phalanx of left index finger. Fresh. 4. Abrasion 6cm x 0.5 cm on anterior aspect of (L) arm 9 cm below from top of left side of shoulder. Fresh. 5. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm just over the top of the (L) shoulder joint. Fresh. As per the opinion of doctor, injury No. 1 is caused by some blunt and hard object; injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are caused by friction against some blunt object; the duration of the injuries were fresh; and all the injuries were simple in nature. 21. Murti Devi was medically examined on 21.08.2008 at 3:40 p.m. by the medical officer, who found the following injuries on her person :- (i) Abraded contusion 4.5 cm x 1 cm on the dorsal aspect of left forearm 5 cm distal to the left elbow joint fresh and colour red. (ii) Contusion 3cm x 1cm just over the top of right shoulder joint, colour red. (iii) Contusion swelling 3cm x 2.5cm on the left occipital region of skull 7.5cm above from left ear coloured. Complains of pain on the back of chest, but no external mark of injury seen. It was opined that all the injuries were caused by some blunt and hard object. 22. (iii) Contusion swelling 3cm x 2.5cm on the left occipital region of skull 7.5cm above from left ear coloured. Complains of pain on the back of chest, but no external mark of injury seen. It was opined that all the injuries were caused by some blunt and hard object. 22. Har Devi and Murti Devi are not the accused before me. Only Prem Singh and Gopali Devi are accused before me. It is well settled position of law that it is not necessary to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in each and every case. Merely because the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries. The same cannot be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case especially when same has been supported by eyewitnesses including injured one as well as their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is well settled position that non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution would not affect the prosecution where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial. In the instant case, the injuries sustained by the appellants are simple in nature and superficial one. Where the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently, the whole case. Apart from this, the prosecution has not put any case of self-defence or has not suggested to any of the witnesses about the theory of self-defence. When the defence pleads the self-defence it should have been sufficient proof of this fact before the court that the accused is entitled to get the benefit of self-defence. In this case, there is no cross-examination or suggestion during the course of evidence or plea of self-defence under section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, the appellants are not entitled to get any benefit of self-defence. The accused persons have only stated in their statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that the complainant party set fire to their house and caused injuries to them. Banwari PW5 was put to a suggestion that the injuries were sustained during the course of the incident. Pritam Singh PW4 has not been suggested about this fact. Contrary to it, PW4 has stated that the accused had not sustained any injury at the time of incident. Banwari PW5 was put to a suggestion that the injuries were sustained during the course of the incident. Pritam Singh PW4 has not been suggested about this fact. Contrary to it, PW4 has stated that the accused had not sustained any injury at the time of incident. He further stated that the complainant party was not having any weapons at the time of incident. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that the appellants were having wooden stick (danda) in their hands. If the appellants were having sticks in their hands and the complainant party was not having any weapon there was no question of self-defence available to the accused. Apart from this, perusal of the injuries on the person of the appellants and another party as indicated above reveals that these are contusions and abrasions which are superficial in nature. A lacerated wound on the person of Prem Singh was on the forearm. It cannot be ruled out that these injuries could be the self-inflicted. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court has held that the evidence of the prosecution is cogent and the evidence was not tainted or unreliable. I am fortified with the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shriram v. State of M.P. (2004 (9) SCC 292) : (2004 Cri LJ 610), in which it has been held as follows :- "15. 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 outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. As observed by this Court in Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar the prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. In Hare Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar it was observed that the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is moreso when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the case at hand, trifle and superficial injuries on the accused are of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of the prosecution case." I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence against the appellants. 23. After considering the evidence in-toto, I am of the view that the trial court rightly found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be implicitly truthful and reliable though the presence of eye-witnesses was attempted to be shown as doubtful. I do not find any reason to accept the plea. Their presence at the place of occurrence was explained and their evidence cannot be thrown out as unreliable or tainted because they are related to the deceased. The manner of assaults as described by the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence. I have gone through the entire oral evidence and found that whatever was stated by way of clarification and contents cannot be termed to be an improvement or contradictions. The manner of assaults as described by the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence. I have gone through the entire oral evidence and found that whatever was stated by way of clarification and contents cannot be termed to be an improvement or contradictions. All the witnesses produced by the prosecution were consistent during the cross-examination and they remained consistent in the cross-examination. They were cross examined at length, but nothing could be elicited from their evidence to discard their evidence. 24. Therefore, I find that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. Vide Court's order 26.09.2006 the appeal against appellant No. 1-Gopali Singh has been abated since he has died. 25. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against the appellants is liable to be confirmed 26. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against the appellants is confirmed. 27. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within three months. Appeal dismissed.