Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months, by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, by his judgment and order dated 20th August, 2007 in Sessions Case No.102/2005. 2. The appellant was tried along with five other accused i.e. accused Nos.1-Mahadu Haribhau Khade, 3-Ganesh Mahadu Khade, 4-Sau. Savita Bramhadev Aandhale, 5Sau. Rekha @ Renuka Ashok Musale and 6-Sau. Kesharbai Tukaram Mapari for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 have been acquitted of all the charges and the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Smt. Ashabai Ramesh Jaybhaye resident of Nimgaon Guru, District Buldhana had agricultural land at village Rohna. She was in possession of the said agricultural land. It appears that there was some dispute between the complainant and her family members on the one hand and the appellant Bharat and his family members on the other hand in respect of the said land. It is alleged that the appellant and the other accused did not want the complainant to reap crop from the said land exclusively for herself. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that this original accused No.1 Mahadu Khade is Uncle of the complainant (brother of her father deceased Dattu Khade). 4. The alleged incident had occurred on 15th March, 2005. The complainant, her husband Ramesh and her father Dattu Khade had gone to the said field for reaping Jwar crop. It is alleged that the appellant and accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 had come there and they took objection and insisted that the complainant and her husband Ramesh should not reap crop from the said field. It is alleged that they were armed with sticks and stones. As far as the appellant is concerned, he was allegedly armed with an axe. The female accused i.e. accused Nos.4 and 5 were having stones in their hands. It is alleged that they were armed with sticks and stones. As far as the appellant is concerned, he was allegedly armed with an axe. The female accused i.e. accused Nos.4 and 5 were having stones in their hands. It is the prosecution case that the appellant and other accused suddenly mounted an attack on the complainant, her husband Ramesh and father Dattu Khade. They started assaulting the complainant, her husband Ramesh and her father Dattu Khade by means of sticks and kick blows an axe was also used by the appellant and his associates during the course of said assault. It is also alleged that the appellant had inflicted axe blows on father of the complainant Dattu Khade (hereinafter referred to as “deceased Dattu”). The appellant had also inflicted axe blows on husband of the complainant namely Ramesh and the complainant. The complainant got an opportunity to run away from the spot and reached Police Outpost. Police recorded her statement at the Police Outpost. The husband and father of the complainant were brought to the hospital. The father of the complainant was declared dead. In the meantime, police had reached Government Hospital. Police Officer Mr. Abdul Razzak prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body in presence of two panchas. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer, who had examined the dead body, had opined that the deceased had died due to hemorrhagic with neurogenic shock due to head injury with multiple injuries. Spot of the incident was visited by the police. Certain weapons were seized from the spot. The accused were arrested during the course of investigation. It is the case of prosecution that some of the accused had made statements before the police, which led to recovery of the alleged weapons of assault. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate. 5. When the case came up for hearing before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge had framed a Charge against the appellant and accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge. As stated earlier, the appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge. As stated earlier, the appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the accused have been acquitted of all the charges. 6. During the course of trial before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, prosecution had examined three eye witnesses i.e. complainant P.W.3-Ashabai, her husband P.W.5-Ramesh and P.W.6-Smt. Yashodabai, who was working in the said field. The prosecution had also examined two panch witnesses to establish that inquest panchanama was drawn. P.W.4-Mahadu was examined to prove that the spot was visited by the police. P.W.7-Sk. Majid and P.W.8-Sk. Harun i.e. panch witnesses have been examined to establish that certain weapons used for assaulting the deceased and others were recovered on the basis of statements made by some of the accused in police custody. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale is the Medical Officer, who had examined P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh after the incident and who had also examined dead body of deceased Dattu Khade. The learned trial Court has believed the evidence of eye witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the evidence of almost witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. He, however, was of the view that there was no sufficient material to establish the charge against other accused. According to him, there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he had passed the impugned judgment and order. 7. P.W.3-Ashabai Jaybhaye, in her evidence, has stated that she owned a field situated at Rohna Shivar. She was in actual physical possession of the said field and she had sowed Jwar crop in the said field, which was ready for reaping. It is stated by her that the appellant and other accused were always threatening her that she should not come to the field and that if she visited the field for reaping the crop, they would kill her. Such type of threat was also extended to P.W.5-Ramesh on 13th March, 2005 and 14th March, 2005 also. 8. According to P.W.3-Ashabai, on 15th March, 2005 when she along with her husband, father and two female labours had visited the said field, she, her husband and her father were assaulted by the appellant and other accused by means of sticks, stones and axe. 8. According to P.W.3-Ashabai, on 15th March, 2005 when she along with her husband, father and two female labours had visited the said field, she, her husband and her father were assaulted by the appellant and other accused by means of sticks, stones and axe. The allegation against the appellant in the evidence of P.W.3-Ashabai is that the appellant was having an axe and that he had inflicted three blows on head of her father deceased Dattu Khade. Accused Nos.1 and 3 had inflicted stick and iron rod blows on the deceased. The appellant had inflicted three blows of axe on head of husband of the complainant. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 had caught hold of P.W.3-Ashabai. At that time, original accused No.3 had asked accused Nos. 4 & 6 to leave her as accused No.3 herself would deal with P.W.3-Ashabai. It is at this point of time that P.W.3 Ashabai got an opportunity to run away from the spot. She had reached the Police Outpost and lodged the complaint. According to this witness, she had sustained injuries on lip, leg and head. She was sent to Deulgaon Raja for medical treatment. Her statement was recoded by the police at Exh.52. First Information Report was registered by the police as per Exh.53. P.W.3-Ashabai and her husband Ramesh were sent to Jalna Hospital for further treatment. After discharge from Jalna Hospital, they had gone to the house of brother of P.W.3-Ashabai situated at village Udapur-Khadga, District Yavatmal. They had taken treatment of private medical practitioner. P.W.3-Ashabai had come to know at Jalna that her father was dead. She had attended 13th day ceremony of her father at her brother's house. 9. P.W.5-Ramesh is husband of P.W.3-Ashabai. According to this witness, the incident had occurred at about 11.30 a.m. on 15th March, 2005 in the field belonging to P.W.3-Ashabai. This witness has stated that the agricultural field was purchased by his wife from one Suresh in the year 2004. It is also stated by this witness that the appellant and other accused were not inclined to permit his wife to use the said agricultural field for any agricultural operations. P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh had lodged report with Police Station against the appellant and other accused in that connection. It is also stated by this witness that the appellant and other accused were not inclined to permit his wife to use the said agricultural field for any agricultural operations. P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh had lodged report with Police Station against the appellant and other accused in that connection. It is further stated by this witness that on the date of incident, P.W.3-Ashabai, P.W.5-Ramesh himself and his father-in-law deceased Dattu Khade and two female workers had gone to the said field. P.W.3-Ashabai, P.W.5-Ramesh and deceased Dattu Khade were assaulted by the appellant and other accused. The appellant was holding an axe and had inflicted three blows of axe on head of deceased Dattu Khade. The appellant had also inflicted two blows on P.W.5-Ramesh and in the result, he had sustained injuries on his head. The accused Nos.1 and 3 had beaten him by means of sticks. While accused Nos.1 and 3 were beating P.W.5-Ramesh, original accused Nos.4 and 6 had caught hold of P.W.3-Ashabai. This witness had seen accused No.3 proceedings towards P.W.3-Ashabai. It is stated by this witness that at that time the original accused Nos.4 and 6 had left P.W.3-Ashabai. P.W.3-Ashabai got opportunity to run away from the spot. P.W.5-Ramesh had gone to Devulgaon Government Hospital in an injured condition. He was sent for further treatment at Jalna Hospital. It is stated by this witness that he was indoor patient at Jalna for eight days and that his wife was also indoor patient during the said period. They had gone to the house of his brother of his wife from Jalna and stayed there about 5 to 6 days. After attending 13th day ceremony of his father-in-law (father of P.W.3-Ashabai), P.W.5-Ramesh and P.W.3-Ashabai had come back to their village. They were called by the police for further investigation. 10. P.W.6-Yashodabai was working as a labour in the said field. She had seen that 5 to 6 persons had assaulted the deceased Dattu Khade with some weapons. She had not been able to state anything more than this. She, however, has stated that the assailants had sticks and stones and an axe in their hands. She could not tell the Court as to who had assaulted deceased Dattu Khade and by which weapon was he assaulted. 11. P.W.7-Sk. Majir and P.W.8-Sk. She had not been able to state anything more than this. She, however, has stated that the assailants had sticks and stones and an axe in their hands. She could not tell the Court as to who had assaulted deceased Dattu Khade and by which weapon was he assaulted. 11. P.W.7-Sk. Majir and P.W.8-Sk. Harun are the panch witnesses in whose presence certain weapons were recovered by the police on the basis of alleged statements made by the appellant and other accused. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. They were declared hostile to the prosecution by the learned Addl. P.P. The learned Addl. P.P. before the trial Court, however could not bring any material in the cross-examination of these two witnesses, which may be mentioned in the present judgment. 12. P.W.4-Mahadu was present when the spot panchanama was drawn on the date of incident itself. According to this witness, the spot was situated in the field of Ashabai Jaybhaye. The crop of Jwar was already cut and it was in further processing. He had seen sickles, pair of footwear, a bucket of water, glasses etc. on the spot. He had also seen blood at three places on the spot. According to this witness, spot panchanama Exh.107 was prepared by the police in his presence. He had identified his signature on the spot panchanama. 13. P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak is the Police Officer, who had recorded statement of P.W.3-Ashabai. This witness has stated that on 15th March, 2005 he was working as Police Sub-Inspector at Deulgaon Raja Police Station. He was on duty at Examination Centre. The said Examination Centre was near the Government Hospital. While he was on duty at the Examination Centre, he came to know that some persons with bleeding injuries had been admitted to the hospital. He, therefore, visited the hospital and found that P.W.3-Ashabai was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition and she was under treatment. Her statement was reduced to writing by this witness. The statement reduced to writing by this witness, which was produced before the trial Court at Exh.52. Occurrence Report was recorded at the Outpost of Deulgaon Mahi. The said Occurrence Report was produced in the trial Court at Exh.53. While this witness was at the hospital, deceased Dattu Khade was also brought to the hospital. Doctor had examined him and declared him dead. P.W.10-Mohd. Occurrence Report was recorded at the Outpost of Deulgaon Mahi. The said Occurrence Report was produced in the trial Court at Exh.53. While this witness was at the hospital, deceased Dattu Khade was also brought to the hospital. Doctor had examined him and declared him dead. P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak had called two panchas and had drawn inquest panchanama in respect of dead body of the deceased. The inquest panchanama was produced before the trial Court at Exh.44. Dead body was sent to the Hospital at Deulgaon Mahi. The Occurrence Report was sent to the Police Station and First Information Report No.25/2005 was registered on the same day. On the same day, this witness had arrested accused No.1, appellant (accused No.2) and accused Nos.3 to 5 on the same day. Accused No.6 was arrested on 17th March, 2005. The arrest panchanama in respect of accused No.6 was produced at Exh.143. There was one juvenile in conflict with law who had also participated in the alleged crime. His case was dealt with separately from other accused. 14. According to P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak, one stick was recovered at the instance of accused No.3 on 19th March, 2005. One stick was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 on the same day. Two sarees were recovered on the basis of statement of accused No.4 Smt Savita on 19th March, 2005. 15. As far as the appellant is concerned, it is stated by P.W.10 that on 19th March, 2005, the appellant had made a statement before him in police custody that he would show one axe, a rod and clothes and accordingly his statement was recorded vide Exh.115. Thereafter the appellant had led the police and panchas to one room and had produced one axe, iron rod and clothes kept below a gunny bag. These articles were seized by P.W.10 in presences of panchas vide recovery panchanama and seizure panchanama Exh.116 and 117 respectively. 16. P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre is another Police Officer, who had participated in investigation of this case. This witness has stated that on 15th March, 2005 he was on duty at Police Station Deulgaon Raja. Occurrence Report No.34/2005 was received by him from the Outpost of Deulgaon Mahi. P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak, who was already on duty at Deulgaon Mahi, was directed by this witness to prepare an inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased at hospital. Occurrence Report No.34/2005 was received by him from the Outpost of Deulgaon Mahi. P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak, who was already on duty at Deulgaon Mahi, was directed by this witness to prepare an inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased at hospital. P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre himself had visited the scene of offence in presence of two panchas. P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre had seized ten articles from the spot. They can be described as under:- 1) One pair of plastic boot on which there were blood stains. 2) One pair of lady-chappal of high heel and of white coloured. 3) One sickle, having 5 inches handle and sharp blade. 4) One axe which had handle of bamboo stick. 5) The blood stains at 3 places. 6) Three small and big iron tople (Baskets). 7) Two small and two big sickle having handle of 5 inches length. 8) One steel plate in which bhakar (bread) etc. were kept. 9) One white coloured handkerchief on which there were blood stains. 10) Steel bucket of water and two glasses. The First Information Report was also registered by this witness and further investigation was again handed over to P.W.10-Mohd. Rafik Abdul Razzak. 17. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale is the Medical Officer, who had examined P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh. This witness had also examined dead body of the deceased and had prepared Post-Mortem Examination Report. According to this witness, he found following injuries on person of P.W.3-Ashabai. (i) Lacerated wound over inner left area of upper lip having size 2 x ½ x ½ cm. which is reddish fresh, bleeding present. Age of injury fresh within 2 to 3 hours. (ii) Pain in lower back area but there was no visible injury. He had issued Certificate at Exh.130 in respect of the injuries found on P.W.3-Ashabai. 18. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale had found following injuries on person of P.W.5-Ramesh. (i) Lacerated wound over occipital area of head size 5 x ½ cm. x 1 cm. reddish in colour deep to bone. Age of injury fresh within 2 to 3 hours, it may be caused by hard and blunt object with forceful blow. (ii) Incised wound over right parietal area of head having size 10 x ½ x ½ cm. reddish in colour deep to bone. Age of injury fresh within 2 to 3 hours which may be caused by hard and sharp object with forceful blow. (iii) Lacerated wound 5 cm. (ii) Incised wound over right parietal area of head having size 10 x ½ x ½ cm. reddish in colour deep to bone. Age of injury fresh within 2 to 3 hours which may be caused by hard and sharp object with forceful blow. (iii) Lacerated wound 5 cm. near to injury No.2 having size 7 x ½ x ½ cm. which was fresh within 2 to 3 hours may be caused hard and sharp object with forceful blow. (iv) Swelling over, both right and left forearm. According to this witness, injury No.2 described above was serious in nature. He had issued Certificate Exh.129 in respect of injuries found on person of P.W.5-Ramesh. 19. As already stated, P.W.9-Dr. Ubale had also examined dead body of deceased Dattu Khade. During the course of examination of dead body, he found following external injuries:- A. Blood was present in mouth and both nostrils. (i) Deep round shaped incised wound on vertex area of head, size 2 x 2 x 1 cm. which was deep to bone with active bleeding. (ii). Spindle shaped two incised wounds on right parietal area of head, 8 cm. above upper part of right ear, having size 7 x 1 x 1 cm. which was deep to bone with bleeding. Apart from above stated injuries, he also found that there was fracture underlined vertex and parietal bone of scull beneath injury Nos.1 and 2 mentioned above. There was also fracture of left tibia fibula. 20. On internal examination, P.W.9-Dr. Ubale found that there was haematoma of 5 x 3 cm. under right parietal and vertex area. Brain was found pale. There was around 200 ml. semi solid material with reddish white colour in stomach. In the opinion of this witness, the deceased had died due to hemorrhagic with neurogenic shock due to head injury with multiple injuries. The Post-Mortem Report was produced before the trial Court at Exh.132. All the injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. 21. The learned Counsel Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi is heard on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted by Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi that the evidence of P.W.315 Ashabaiand P.W.5-Ramesh is not reliable inasmuch as the evidence raise more questions than answers. All the injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. 21. The learned Counsel Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi is heard on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted by Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi that the evidence of P.W.315 Ashabaiand P.W.5-Ramesh is not reliable inasmuch as the evidence raise more questions than answers. It is submitted that there are many gaps in the evidence of P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh, which give rise to a reasonable doubt regarding the correctness of their evidence. It is submitted that it is not brought on record as to how P.W.5-Ramesh and the deceased had reached hospital. It was also brought to our notice that P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre has admitted that on the same day i.e. on 15th March, 2005 an offence was registered against P.W.3-Ashabai on the complaint of original accused No.1 Mahadu vide First Information Report No.26/2005 and that the appellant and accused No.1 were examined by P.W.9-Dr. Ubale on the same day. It is admitted by P.W.9-Dr. Ubale that appellant Bharat Khade had a head injury, which was fresh and was appeared to have been caused by hard and sharp object. It is also admitted by this witness that the injury could be caused by an axe. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale has further admitted that he had sutured the wound by applying nine stitches. 22. The learned Counsel Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi has submitted that in the background of these admissions on the part of P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre and P.W.9-Dr. Ubale and lacunae in the evidence of P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh and suppression of material evidence by P.W.6-Yashodabai, this Court may not confirm the judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from serious infirmities inasmuch as the trial Court has not taken proper note of the admissions made by P.W.9-Dr. Ubale and P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre. It is submitted that the non-explanation of injury on the person of the appellant by the prosecution is sufficient to throw away the prosecution case out of the Court. 23. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses and we have also gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant has not stated anything in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to how had he sustained injuries on his head. 23. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses and we have also gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant has not stated anything in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to how had he sustained injuries on his head. We are aware of the legal position that non-explanation on the part of the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by itself cannot take place proof of the allegations made against the accused, though it may strengthen, the prosecution case if proved otherwise. However, in the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was expected that the appellant would say something in the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code to explain as to how did he sustain the injuries. As far as the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is stated by P.W.11-Shridhar Kendre that First Information Report No.26/2005 recorded on the complaint of original accused No.1 was also investigated and that the said First Information Report was found to be false and summary report was submitted in the Court of Magistrate. As such the police was not partisan. They were impartial. They have investigated both the First Information Reports. They found First Information Report No.26/2005 filed by original accused No.1 to be false. 24. As regards the law as to the obligation of prosecution to explain the injury on the person of accused, we may refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji .vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others reported at AIR 2001 SC 2328 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused has observed as under:- “17. The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused has observed as under:- “17. The first question which arises for consideration is what is the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused persons. In Rajendra Singh V. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 : (2000 AIR SCW 1314 : AIR 2000 SC 1779 : 2000 Cri LJ 2199); Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 365 : (1998 AIR SCW 3030 AIR 1998 SC 3117 : 1998 Cri LJ 4558) and Vijayee Singh vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1459 : 1990 Cri LJ 1510) all 3-Judges Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that it cannot be held as a matter of law invariably a rule that whenever accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved. Before non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the prosecution case, the Court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions : (1) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Where the evidence is clear cogent and credit worthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently the whole of the prosecution case.” As such it is necessary to be satisfied that the injury found on the person of the appellant was sustained by him during the course of same incident before we draw an adverse inference against the State. As already stated, the appellant himself is silent on this aspect of the case. The Police Officer had explained that the First Information Report lodged by accused No.1 was found to be false. As already stated, the appellant himself is silent on this aspect of the case. The Police Officer had explained that the First Information Report lodged by accused No.1 was found to be false. The said summary report does not appear to have been challenged by the appellant. In the circumstances, there was burden upon the appellant to probabalize that the injuries found on his head were sustained by him during the course of same incident. The court cannot presume that the appellant had sustained injuries during the same incident only because the appellant had come to the hospital immediately after the incident. Neither the appellant had given any history of the injury nor has he stated anything in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 25. We have also gone through the cross-examination of P.W.3-Ashabai. It was suggested to P.W.3-Ashabai that the appellant and other accused were assaulted by P.W.3-Ashabai and others associated with P.W.3. The said suggestion has been denied by P.W.3-Ashabai. As such, though the appellant had not specifically raised the issue of private defence of his body and his relatives, we have examined the case of the appellant from that angle also. We have examined the evidence keeping in mind the legal position that failure of prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused is not always adverse to the prosecution case. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts of this case have been narrated by us in detail. If somebody from the side of P.W.3-Ashabai had inflicted blow on the appellant, the appellant was expected to state the same in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the trial Court, though it was not obligatory on his part to specifically raise the issue of private defence. It is possible to say that the accused might not have seen the assailant. However, as least the accused could tell the place and time of injury. Benefit cannot be extended to the accused only because he had reached police station in an injured condition. Nature and extent of burden of explaining the injury may differ from case to case depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. It is possible that in a given case Court may give benefit to the accused of non-explanation of injuries found on his person by the prosecution. Nature and extent of burden of explaining the injury may differ from case to case depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. It is possible that in a given case Court may give benefit to the accused of non-explanation of injuries found on his person by the prosecution. However, as stated, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule of law can be laid down that non-explanation of injury on person of the accused shall always lead to rejection of prosecution case. In this regard, it may be noted here that, in such circumstances, there may be possibility of a case and cross-case. Both the sides could be held equally culpable. However, in the present case, the complaint filed by original accused No.1 was found to be false. The report submitted by the police has not been challenged by either of the accused or the appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Counsel Dr. Ms. U.K. Kalsi that non-examination on the part of prosecution with regard to injuries on the appellant must lead to rejection of the prosecution case. 26. We have also examined rest of the cross-examination of the witnesses i.e. P.W.3-Ashabai and P.W.5-Ramesh. Major portion of cross-examination is devoted to the alleged role of original accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine that part of cross-examination as those accused have already been acquitted of all the charges. 27. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that there is no substance in the appeal. The prosecution has been able to establish that on the date of incident i.e. on 15th March, 2005 at about 11.30 a.m. in the field of P.W.3-Ashabai, the appellant was found holding an axe and he had assaulted the deceased by means of an axe. The deceased had sustained injuries described by P.W.9-Dr. Ubale and died due to hemorrhagic with neurogenic shock due to head injury with multiple injuries. It is clear that the appellant had intended to cause death of the deceased or had intended to cause injuries on the person of deceased. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale had stated that the injuries on the person of deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. It is clear that the appellant had intended to cause death of the deceased or had intended to cause injuries on the person of deceased. P.W.9-Dr. Ubale had stated that the injuries on the person of deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. The appellant, therefore, is rightly found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We have noted that the trial Court has not convicted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, though it was alleged that the appellant had caused injuries to P.W.5-Ramesh. Since there is no appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the appellant of all other charges, it is not necessary for us to deal with that aspect of the case. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.