JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. State of Rajasthan has preferred present appeal against acquittal to assail the judgment dated 23.10.1989 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The said court vide impugned judgment acquitted Tej Singh son of Jor Singh and four sons of Tej Singh, namely Prahlad Singh, Bhagirath Singh, Jaipal Singh and Arjun Singh. 2. During pendency of present appeal, Tej Singh expired and the State appeal was dismissed qua him having abated. It will be apposite here to reproduce order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this court, as under:- "Learned P.P. has moved an application under Section 394 Cr.P.C., 1973 for taking on record an information that Tej Singh, respondent No.1 has expired and remaining respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are alive. He has also annexed a report dated 6th March, 2010 received by him from SHO Police Station, Losal, District Sikar. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The information is taken on record and the appeal against Tej Singh s/o Jor Singh respondent No.1 is, accordingly dismissed as abated. List the appeal for hearing against the remaining respondents on 18th March, 2010 as prayed." 3. The trial Judge to record acquittal of accused-respondents has extended right of self defence to the accused by holding that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. The trial court further held that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the serious injuries on the person of accused and rather, they resorted to falsehood by saying that they have not seen the injuries caused to the accused in the occurrence. 4. In the present case, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex.P.14) submitted by Bhagirath Singh (PW.14). Bhagirath Singh (PW.14) presented written report (Ex.P.14) to Vishambhar Dayal (PW.16) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Losal. 5. Vishambhar Dayal (PW.16) in court deposed that on 2.7.1987 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Losal. On the said date, Bhan Singh Rajpoot (PW.3) had presented written report (Ex.P.14) recorded at the instance of Bhagirath Singh (PW.14). Vishambhar Dayal (PW.16) stated that the written report (Ex.P.14) besides Bhagirath Singh (PW.14) was also signed by Bhan Singh (PW.3). 6. 5. Vishambhar Dayal (PW.16) in court deposed that on 2.7.1987 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Losal. On the said date, Bhan Singh Rajpoot (PW.3) had presented written report (Ex.P.14) recorded at the instance of Bhagirath Singh (PW.14). Vishambhar Dayal (PW.16) stated that the written report (Ex.P.14) besides Bhagirath Singh (PW.14) was also signed by Bhan Singh (PW.3). 6. Bhagirath Singh (PW.14) in the written report (Ex.P.14) stated that on 27.6.1987 when he was preparing ridge/boundary wall (Dol) of his field, Tej Singh had stopped him, upon which dispute took place. Residents of the village came and they got the fields demarcated. The complainant stated that Tej Singh felt annoyed. He further stated, yesterday in the night at 9.00 PM when he was present in his house, brother of Tej Singh, namely Bakshu Singh, abused him. In the written report (Ex.P.14) it was stated that the complainant took him towards his house. Meanwhile, Laxman Singh son of Kishore Singh, brother of Tej Singh, went inside the house of Tej Singh and called Tej Singh and all five sons of Tej Singh, namely Prahlad Singh, Bhagirath Singh, Jaipal Singh, Arjun Singh and Shrawan Singh. On arrival, they started giving injuries to Prithvi Singh. While he was returning to his house, near the house of Prithvi Singh, accused also caused him injuries with lathis. In the written report (Ex.P.14) it was stated that his aunt Prem Kanwar (PW.4) fell upon him in order to save. Meanwhile, accused who were returning, also caused injuries to Phool Ji with lathis. Phool Ji fell down and became unconscious and blood started coming out of his injuries. Phool Ji on the way died due to injuries caused by accused. 7. We may notice here that the written report (Ex.P.14) is totally silent regarding the injuries caused to the accused. Admittedly, as per the written report (Ex.P.14), after the accused had gone to the house of complainant and had given abuses, complainant took accused back to their house to pacify. Thus, the occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused far away from the house of the complainant. We are also of the view that complainant party has falsely coined explanation that accused came to their house and thereafter they accompanied accused, on return to their house. This explanation has been concocted only to explain presence of complainant party near the house of accused. We are also of the view that complainant party has falsely coined explanation that accused came to their house and thereafter they accompanied accused, on return to their house. This explanation has been concocted only to explain presence of complainant party near the house of accused. 8. The trial Judge in Para-8 of the judgment had noted that Dr. Ratan Singh (PW.15) had noted six injuries vide injury report (Ex.D.10) on the person of accused Tej Singh. The said Doctor had also noted six injuries vide injury report (Ex.D.9) on the person of accused Prahlad Singh. Similarly, in the injury report (Ex.D.11) one injury was noted on the person of accused Jaipal Singh, two injuries were found on the person of accused Bhagirath Singh vide injury report (Ex.D.12) and one injury was noted in the injury report (Ex.D.13) on the person of accused Arjun Singh. The trial court noted that it has come in the testimony of Dr. J.P. Verma (DW.1) that accused Jaipal Singh and Arjun Singh had suffered fracture of the skull. As per X-ray report (Ex.D.21), Arjun Singh had suffered fracture of parietal and temporal bone on left side. Report of Radiologist (Ex.D.19) noted fracture of left tempro-parietal region on the person of accused Jaipal Singh. The trial court further noted that duration of the injuries suffered by the accused and the complainant is same and thus, the accused and the complainant injured have suffered injuries at the same time. The learned trial court noted that both the sides suffered injuries. The trial court further held that on the side of prosecution, except injuries suffered by Phool Singh, deceased, only Pappu Kanwar (PW.5) had suffered fracture of phalanx of finger. All other injuries suffered on the side of prosecution were simple in nature. The trial court recorded that Bhagirath Singh (PW.14) had suffered 12 simple injuries vide Exhibit-P.46 and Prithvi Singh (PW.10) had suffered 16 simple injuries vide Exhibit-P.47, whereas except accused Jaipal and Arjun, all other accused have suffered simple injuries. Thus, the trial court noted that the accused side had suffered more injuries and the injuries on the person of accused were grievous also. 9. Thus, the trial court noted that the accused side had suffered more injuries and the injuries on the person of accused were grievous also. 9. Having held that in the FIR complainant has not uttered a word regarding injuries suffered by the accused, the trial court further came to the conclusion that from the testimony of the witnesses it is apparent that the occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused. The court further held that from the testimony of the witnesses, right of self defence can be extended to the accused-respondents. 10. We have gone through the record and the paper book with able assistance rendered by Shri B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General-cum-Public Prosecutor and Ms. Sakshi Swami learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents. 11. We find that the findings returned by the trial Judge are justifiable from the testimony of prosecution witnesses. 12. Prem Kanwar (PW.4) in court stated, ^^rst flag o vU; eqyfteku ds pksVsa yxh eSaus ugha ns[khA** Pappu Kanwar (PW.5) in court stated that Phool Singh deceased was caused injuries near the Bada of Tej Singh. He also stated that he had not seen any injury on the person of Tej Singh and other accused. We reproduce following portion from the testimony of Pappu Kanwar (PW.5):- ^^Qwy flag ds lkFk ekjihB vfHk;qrx.k us rstflag dh ckM+ ls nks ikaoM+k nwj dhA Qwy flag dks ekj jgs Fks] mlh le; lqyrku flag vk x;kA Qwy flag esjs firk ds cM+s HkkbZ gSA edku ds if'pe es 'kkSp djus dk gekjk ckM+k gSA eqyfte rst flag ds o vU; eqyfteku ds eSaus dksbZ yxh gqbZ pksV ugha ns[khA** 13. In the present case, we find non-explanation of serious injuries on the person of accused is fatal to the prosecution. It is well settled legal proposition that if the right of self defence is discernible from the prosecution evidence, then same can be extended. In Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [ (1976) 4 SCC 394 ], the Supreme Court has held as under:- "This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. v. State of Bihar [ (1976) 4 SCC 394 ], the Supreme Court has held as under:- "This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the present case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975 : which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows: In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975 :) one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows: In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the in juries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case. It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version: (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." 14. Considering that the occurrence had taken place near the house of accused, they have suffered numerous injuries and two of the accused, namely Jaipal Singh and Arjun Singh, have suffered fracture of skull, we are convinced that it was incumbent for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of accused. Non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused in the present case lead to only one conclusion that the prosecution witnesses intentionally have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence and they have not come to the court with clean hands. Therefore, we cannot term the prosecution witnesses as truthful and reliable witnesses. 15. In the context of above, we have no hesitation to hold that the findings returned by the trial Judge cannot be termed perverse and hence, the view formulated by the trial Judge is one view which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, same cannot be disturbed in appeal against acquittal. 16. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.