JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pratyush Kumar, J.—The instant appeal filed on behalf of the State is directed against judgment and order dated 2.9.1983 passed by Shri P. Dayal, the then Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No.317 of 1983, State v. Taufiq Rizvi, whereby the sole respondent was acquitted from the charge under Section 302, IPC. 2. In the present case the prosecution case may be summarised as under : 3. On 23.4.1983 Mohd. Asif gave a written report at P.S. Sadar Bazar at 7.15 p.m. mentioning therein that he had a shop near police outpost Anjan. At about 6.30 p.m. on that date he was at his shop. Baqar Husain alias Munney had his shop near Majistic Talkies, Baqar Husain was hotly demanding money from one person. When he declined to pay, Baqar Husain insisted for payment, at that he stabbed a chhuri (dagger) taken out from back of his trouser and struck in the stomach of Baqar Husain, who fell down. That person inflicted several blow of chhuri on fallen Baqar. In the meanwhile Gulzari Singh, Surendra Pal Singh, Rashid, Ahmad Khan, Sayeed Khan, police constable Amar Singh, Sattar Husain came there and caught him alongwith chhuri. On inquiry he told his name Taufiq Rizvi, resident of Bareilly. Constable Sattar Husain took injured Baqar in a rickshaw to Sadar Hospital, arrested assailant Taufiq alongwith chhuri, who had been brought to police station with the help of police, action be taken on his report. 4. On this report chik FIR was scribed, Case Crime No.222/99 was registered under Section 307, IPC and requisite entry was made in the report of the General Diary. Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Yad Ram Singh. During treatment Baqar Husain alias Munney died on 26.4.1984. The said case crime number was altered under Section 302, IPC. After concluding the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the present respondent. 5. In the Court of Session the respondent was charged under Section 302, IPC, who pleaded not guilty. On behalf of prosecution besides documentary evidence 11 witnesses were examined. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein the respondent had stated that entire prosecution case was false. He had not committed the murder. He was not arrested on the spot with the chhuri. He had himself gone to police outpost Anjan for his own safety. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein the respondent had stated that entire prosecution case was false. He had not committed the murder. He was not arrested on the spot with the chhuri. He had himself gone to police outpost Anjan for his own safety. He was asked to come to Shahjahanpur to settle dispute between Baqar Husain alias Munney and his one worker. He had been assaulted. He snatched the chhuri and used it to save him when he was struck a severe blow with a stick. 6. In his defence he had examined two witnesses. After hearing the arguments for the parties the learned Sessions Judge upheld the plea of self-defence and acquitted the respondent. 7. Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed. 8. Heard Sri Pradeep Pandey, learned AGA for the State-appellant and Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent and perused the record. 9. On behalf of appellant learned AGA has argued that ocular version of the prosecution story is corroborated by medical evidence, eye witness account has been erroneously discarded. Spot arrest was fully proved and disbelieved without cogent reason. The learned Sessions Judge committed error in fact and in law in upholding the plea of right of private defence. 10. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention towards circumstances pointed out in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 under which the finding of acquittal may be interfered with by the Appellate Court. 11. The observations made in the aforesaid case was reiterated in a recent decision in Murugesan v. State Through Inspector of Police, (2012) 10 SCC 383 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted hereinunder: “21. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted hereinunder: “21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 . The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (i) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (iii) Various expressions, such as, ‘’substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘’good and sufficient grounds’, ‘’very strong circumstances’, ‘’distorted conclusions’, ‘’glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘’flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (iv) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 12. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 12. Keeping in view of the aforesaid settled position of law while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, we have delved into the evidence available on record and have come to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court is fully borne out by the evidence on record and the view taken by the learned trial Judge is equally ‘a possible view’. 13. For the sake of elucidating our reasons we would like to outline the details of 11 prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution, which are as follows: 14. Mohd. Asif, PW-1 has been examined on the points of motive, occurrence, written report, Exhibit Ka-1 and recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-2. He has also identified chhuri, Exhibit 1. H.C. Amar Singh, PW-5 has been examined on the point of occurrence and arrest of the respondent. He has proved the copy of the G.D., Exhibit Ka-8 and identified the chhuri, Exhibit 1. Gulzari Singh, PW-6 has also given the details unfolded by Amar Singh, PW-5. Smt. Shamim Jahan Begum, PW-9, wife of the deceased has been examined to prove the motive. 15. In the medical evidence Dr. A.K. Jain, PW-2 has been examined to give details of medical examination of the deceased. He has proved the injury report, Exhibit Ka-3 wherein by this witness following injuries were recorded : 1. Incised wound 9 c.m. X 4 c.m. X muscle deep on back of left upper arm obliquely placed 11 c.m. above left elbow joint, lower end was directed medially. Tailing was present downwards. Margins were clean cut, everted and well defined. Bleeding was present on touch. 2. Incised would 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. X muscle deep obliquely placed on upper part of front of left side of neck 9.5 c.m. above inner end of left clavicle. Lower end was directed anteriorly. Tailing was towards anterior end. Margins were clean cut, well defined and everted. 3. Incised wound 18 c.m. X 10 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep obliquely placed on front of right side of abdomen 2.5 c.m. below xiphisternum, upper end towards midline. Lower end was directed anteriorly. Tailing was towards anterior end. Margins were clean cut, well defined and everted. 3. Incised wound 18 c.m. X 10 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep obliquely placed on front of right side of abdomen 2.5 c.m. below xiphisternum, upper end towards midline. Margins were well defined, clean cut and sharp. Loop of intestine was protruding out, bleeding present. 4. Incised wound 6 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. x muscle deep obliquely placed on upper part of right leg 14 c.m. below right knee joint upper end directing medially. Margins were clean cut, well defined and everted. Tailing was present downwards. Bleeding on touch present. 5. Incised wound 4 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. on inner aspect of right thigh 20 c.m. above right knee joint, clotted blood was present. 6. Incised wound 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. x chest and abdominal cavity deep on anteriolateral aspect of left side of chest 12 c.m. away from left nipple between 3 and 5 o’ clock position. Margins were clean cut, well defined and sharp. Bleeding was present. 16. Dr. Satya Pal, PW-7 has been examined in reference to the treatment of the deceased and surgical operations performed on the person of the deceased. He has proved his bed head ticket, Exhibit Ka-9. 17. Dr. I.J. Punhani, PW-10 has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 26.4.1983 at 4.00 p.m. He has recorded the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. During internal examination he found right lung lacerated. According to him, death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante mortem injuries. He has proved the post mortem report, Exhibit Ka-12 wherein the following ante mortem injuries have been recorded:- 1. Abraded contusion 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. on the right side forehead 2.5 c.m. above right eyebrow. 2. 4 c.m. long stitched wound on the left side neck with four stitches. 3. Incised wound 18 c.m. X 8 c.m. x cavity deep on the back of left upper arm. 4. 9 c.m. long stitched wound with nine stitches on the left side lower chest at 5 o’ clock position and 15 c.m. below left nipple. 5. Stitched wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x cavity deep just below injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound 18 c.m. X 8 c.m. x cavity deep on the back of left upper arm. 4. 9 c.m. long stitched wound with nine stitches on the left side lower chest at 5 o’ clock position and 15 c.m. below left nipple. 5. Stitched wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x cavity deep just below injury No. 4. 6. Stitched wound 11 c.m. long on the left side upper abdomen with 11 stitches. 7. 14 c.m. long stitched wound on right side upper abdomen with 14 stitches. 8. Stab wound 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. x cavity just below and behind injury No. 7 with drainsheet. 9. Stab wound 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. x cavity deep on the supra pubic region with drain in. 10. Contusion 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the back of right side abdomen 6 c.m. below injury No. 8. 11. Stitched wound 3 c.m. long on front of right thigh in middle. 12. Stitched wound 6 c.m. long with five stitches on front of right leg in middle. 13. Abrasion 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on front of right knee. 14. V.S. Cut on left ankle. 18. S.M. Agarwal, PW-8, Bank Manager, S.B.I., Shyam Ganj Branch, Bareilly has been examined to prove withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- by the deceased from the bank on 12.4.1983. He has proved the withdrawal voucher, Exhibit Ka-10. 19. Constable Malkhan Giri, PW-3 took the dead body to the mortuary. 20. Head Constable Ram Babu Saxena, PW-4 proved the recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-3, chik FIR, Exhibit Ka-4, copy of G.D., Exhibit Ka-5, recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-6 and copy of G.D., Exhibit Ka-7. 21. S.I. Yad Ram Singh, PW-11 is the Investigating Officer, who has been examined to prove the steps taken during investigation. He has proved recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-13 and 15, site plan, Exhibit Ka-14 and charge sheet, Exhibit Ka-16. He has also identified the samples of blood stained and simple earth, Exhibit 2 and 3. 22. In the defence Dr. K.M.L. Khanna, Jail Doctor has been examined as DW-1, who medically examined the respondent in District Jail on 26.4.1983 at 11.12 a.m. The witness has proved the injury report, Exhibit Kha-1 wherein he has recorded the following injuries on his person:- 1. Abrasion 12 c.m. x 11 c.m. in size on the upper part of left of sternum. 2. K.M.L. Khanna, Jail Doctor has been examined as DW-1, who medically examined the respondent in District Jail on 26.4.1983 at 11.12 a.m. The witness has proved the injury report, Exhibit Kha-1 wherein he has recorded the following injuries on his person:- 1. Abrasion 12 c.m. x 11 c.m. in size on the upper part of left of sternum. 2. Contusion 15 c.m. x 14 c.m. in size on the outer aspect of left knee. 3. Lacerated wound ½ c.m. x 0.2 c. m. x skin deep on the tip of left ring finger. 4. Incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. x skin deep on the outer side of front of left palm. 5. Incised wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. x skin deep on the base of front of left palm. 6. Incised wound ½ c.m. x 0.4 c.m. x skin deep ½ c.m. medial to injury No. 5. 7. Incised wound 1 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. in size on the base of left index finger over palmer side. 23. According to doctor, these injuries could have been sustained on 23.4.1983 at 6.00 p.m. Injuries Nos. 1 to 3 could have been caused by lathi and danda and rest by a sharp edged weapon. 24. Shamim Ahmad Khan, DW-2 has been examined, who has produced the gate register of District Jail, Shahjahanpur and stated that on 25.4.1983 no doctor visited the District Jail. On the next day at 10.00 a.m. Dr. K.M.L. Khanna entered the District Hospital. 25. Medical evidence has almost remained unchanged. Respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has also not disputed correctness of the medical evidence. We find it to be reliable and hold that on 23.4.1983 deceased sustained six incised wounds. All were caused by sharp edged weapon, which were dangerous to life and on 26.4.1983 the injured succumbed to these injuries and his death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries. 26. It is not disputed that the respondent was sent to District Jail on 24.4.1983. It is also not disputed that from the evening of 23.4.1983 he remained in the custody of police personnel. The only question is whether he was arrested by the police and citizen at the spot or he came to police outpost Anjan himself. 26. It is not disputed that the respondent was sent to District Jail on 24.4.1983. It is also not disputed that from the evening of 23.4.1983 he remained in the custody of police personnel. The only question is whether he was arrested by the police and citizen at the spot or he came to police outpost Anjan himself. The second question is whether the occurrence took place in the manner stated by the prosecution or in the manner stated by the accused. To find answers to these we have to re-examine and re-evaluate the eye witness account. 27. Mohd. Asif, PW-1 has unfolded the prosecution story. During cross examination he admitted that he had no proof that he had started his shop from January 1983. His presence at the spot is natural and probable. What struck us, significant is that this witness had reproduced the altercation proceeding, the scuffle. We have a doubt whether this witness had opportunity to see the occurrence. From the evidence of Dr. K.M.L. Khanna, DW-1 it is established that the respondent had received seven injuries at the time of medical examination in District Jail. In the District Jail these injuries were not self-inflicted otherwise Shamim Ahmad Khan, DW-2 would have disclosed that incident from his record. From his evidence it is also established that it was the first opportunity when person of the accused was examined by a doctor. The accused has given explanation of his injuries, but inspite of claiming himself to be an eye witness this witness could not explain how the respondent received injuries. For this reason we find that he has been rightly disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. 28. Second witness is Head Constable Amar Singh. He claims to have reached the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of cries and saw the respondent inflicting chhuri blows on the deceased. He is also unable to explain the injuries sustained by the respondent. According to him, when he reached the scene of occurrence, the respondent only once struck the deceased by chhuri. This may be the fatal wound claimed by the respondent to have been inflicted in his self-defence. This witness has not seen the genesis or origin of the occurrence. For this reason we also find him not worthy of reliance. 29. Gulzari Singh, PW-6 also claims to have reached after hearing the cries. This may be the fatal wound claimed by the respondent to have been inflicted in his self-defence. This witness has not seen the genesis or origin of the occurrence. For this reason we also find him not worthy of reliance. 29. Gulzari Singh, PW-6 also claims to have reached after hearing the cries. According to him, respondent was inflicting chhuri blows on the deceased, who was arrested by him and other persons with the help of the police constables. He has also not explained the injuries sustained by the respondent. He has not seen how the incident had occurred. His testimony is not inconsistent with the version given by the respondent, therefore, his testimony also is of no help to the prosecution. 30. Smt. Shamim Jahan Begum, PW-9, wife of the deceased had not seen the occurrence. At the best she can be said to be witness of motive and last seen. In the cross examination she appears to be not well conversant with the English Calendar. We do not think she could correctly remember the dates. For this reason her testimony is also of no significance. 31. From the medical evidence it has come out that deceased sustained six injuries and the respondent sustained seven injuries. Prosecution witnesses could not explain the injuries sustained by the respondent. Just after the occurrence the respondent remained in the custody of the appellant. It was the duty of the prosecution to explain how the respondent sustained the injuries. The inability of the prosecution to explain these injuries persuades us to conclude that genesis of the occurrence and full facts have been concealed by the prosecution and the prosecution has not come with clean hands. We think that learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that in such factual background and legal position the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses has to be discarded and he rightly acquitted the accused by doing so. 32. There is catena of decisions wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed the view which has been formed by us. In Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 , non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused was considered and after coming to the conclusion that origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution, which would lead to conclude that prosecution version was not the correct one. In Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 , non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused was considered and after coming to the conclusion that origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution, which would lead to conclude that prosecution version was not the correct one. In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, AIR 1975 SC 1478 , in such situation three contingencies were contemplated. They are as under : 1. that the accused exercised the right of private defence. 2. the prosecution version was doubtful. 3. that it might not affect the prosecution case. 33. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found contingency Nos. 1 & 2 more probable. 34. In the case of State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and others, AIR 2003 SC 4089 , it has been opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and non-explanation of such injuries has been held to be fatal for the prosecution. 35. In a recent case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2012 (1) JIC 547 (SC) the supreme Court in para 14 of the report as observed as under : “(14) It has firstly to be borne in mind that the injuries on the accused had not been explained as the prosecution witness did not utter a single word as to how they had been suffered by them. In this view of the matter, the defence can legitimately raise a suspicion that the genesis of the incident was shrouded in mystery and the prosecution had suppressed a part of the proceeding. It is true, as contended by Dr. Manish Singhvi, that each and every injury on an accused is not required to be explained and more particularly where all the injuries caused to the accused are simple in nature (as in the present case) and the facts of the case have to be assessed on the nature of probabilities. It is true, as contended by Dr. Manish Singhvi, that each and every injury on an accused is not required to be explained and more particularly where all the injuries caused to the accused are simple in nature (as in the present case) and the facts of the case have to be assessed on the nature of probabilities. Examining the incident in the light of the above, we find that the injuries in the present case were required to be explained as there is a serious dispute as to the possession of the land in which the incident had happened, more particularly as Raghuveer Singh himself was uncertain as to the nature of the possession as per the statements on record and the Patwari had also warned the complainant party not to trespass into the land. Undoubtedly, there are a large number of injured witnesses, some of them grievously hurt, to support the prosecution case, but in the light of the finding of the High Court that there was uncertainty about the possession, this fact by itself cannot preclude the accused from claiming that no case was made out against them.” 36. We have examined the facts of the present case in the law discussed above and come to the conclusion that in the peculiar facts of this case, it was incumbent on the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the respondent which it did not do so, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent is perfectly justified and the impugned judgment suffers with neither factual nor legal infirmity. 37. Appeal is without substance and deserves to be dismissed. 38. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. ——————