> %\ _'———— {K HIGH COURT OF CHHKI'TISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. g$RENDRA MLSHRéhé HON. MR. KN“ . CHANDRAKA‘EJ‘g CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6ZZ OF 2003 APPELLANTs : Ram Chandra and another- (In Jail) / Vs Sfa’re of Chhu‘rfisgafh RESPONDENT x JUDGMENT FOR CONsIDERATION ‘X ’1 I x >b HON'BLE 5HRI R.N.CHANDRAKAR, J 3 kw J’— Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra Judge sd/— RN. Chandrakar Judge 15Eoiédo9” " SdL ' l mmmNDRA MISHRA Judge Qéidzow i i ix ‘ (g 5+ PO5T FOR JUDGMENT ON 21 OCTOBER, 2009 / (Ls: ., w? HIGH COURT OF>CHHATT£$GARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRAI & HON. MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.622 OF 2003 APPELLANTS 1 . Ram Chandra, agéd abou’r 37 (35) yéar‘s. (In Jail) 2. Tara Chand, aged abou’r 42 (40) years. Bo’rh sons of Shri Ghanaram Lodhi, .agriculfurisfs and redidenfs of village Dhodhapur, P.S. Pafhariya, Tahsil Mungeli, Dish‘. Bilaspur. Vs RESPONDENT Sfa’re of Chha‘r‘risgorh. Przsenf: Mr PKC Tiwari learned Sr Advocate wi‘rh Mr. Shoshi Bhushan, learned counsel for The appellanfs Mr Ashush Shukla learned Governmen‘l Advocate for The S’ra‘re Mr VC Offalwar and Mr Malay Shrlvasfava learned counsel for fhe obJec’ror J U D G M E N T (Delivered on Ql .10.2009) Dhirendra Mishra J: 1. [The appellanfs have preferred fhis criminal appeal under Secfion 374 (2) of The Cr.P,C. agains‘r The judgmenf of convicfion and order of senfence dafed 12.5.2003 passed in S.T. No.420/01 whereby fhe learned III Addifional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, Dis’rPicf Bilaspur has convicfed The appellanTs under SecTions 302/34 a 323/34 of me I.P.c. and sentenced each of Them To, undergo life imprisonmenT, pay a fine ,or Rs.1,000/-, in defaulT Thereof, To undergo addiTional RI for six monThs; and To pay a fine of Rs.500/, and in defaulT of paymenT of fine, To undergo RI. for Two monThs. 2. Case of The prosecuTion, in brief, is ThaT faTher of injured \\ complainanT Koran Singh namely Moujiram and accused persans are k cuITiva’ror‘s of Village Dodapur‘. On 20*“ July, 2001 aT 18.00 hour's, appeIIanT Ramchandr'a Lodhi under The influence of Iiquor was brandishing Ia‘rhi and using fiHhy Ianguage in from of house of one Jagur‘am on ’rhe road. One Bhagwondas took him ’ro his home, ~ however, he again refurned and sfar‘red quarrelling wifh Jagur'am alleging ‘rha‘r he go? him defea‘red in Sarpanch elecfion, whereupon Jaguram sna’rched Iafhi from him, on which he wem‘ back To his home and refurned wifh his brother Tarachand. Ramchandra was holding sword whereas Tarachand was holding Vla‘rhi. Appellon’r Ramchandra assauITed Moujiram on his head whereas appellan’r Tarachand assaul‘red him wi‘rh Ia‘rhi. Moujiram fell on The ground. Witnesses Koran Singh, Vipofram, Jaguram and Ramnafh in’rervened. AT ’rhaf fime, Tarachand also assaul’red Karan Singh wifh lafhi, asia resul’r, he susfoined injuries over his lef’r elbow, lef‘l leg and fhighs. Karan Singh wenf ’ro police s’ra'rion wifh Kofwar, his fa’rher Moujiram and Jagurom and lodged fhe report against the appellants vide'Ex.P/1 on 21.7.2001 at 2 hours, whereupon offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. Police Sent Moujiram and Karon Singh for examination to Community Health Center, Pathariya vide Ex.P/7 and P/9, where Dr. P.K. Singh examined them and gave their medico legal reports of EXP/8 and P/1O respectively. Both of them were also referred to District Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment, where Moujiram died on 21.7.2001 at 10 am. His dead body was sent for autopsy to Dharam Hospital, Bilaspur on 21.7.2001 vide Ex.P/5, where Dr. S.’ Chhatterjee conducted postmortem and gave the report of EXP/6. Copy of the FIR was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli and receipt thereof is EXP/23. The appellants were arrested on 22.7.2001 vide Ex.P/16 & P/17. Sword and lathi were seized on being produced by Karon Singh on 22.7.2001 vide Ex.P/2. The aforesaid articles were sent for examination to CHC, Pathariya vide Ex P/11 and report of the doctor is Ex.P/12. Inquest over The dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Site plan was prepared vide EXP/5. Wearing, appareis of *he deceased in a sealed packe’r ‘ received from hospiml were Taken in'ro possession vide EXP/20. Bloodstained Boniyon, Lungi and Gamchha of the deceased were Taken in'ro possession on being produced by Sukrifdas - Kofwar vide Ex.P/21. 3. Affer complefing investigafion, charge sheef was fiied agains’r ”the accused/appeHanfs in The Cour? of learned Judicial Magis’rr'afe First Class, Mungeli, who in furn commif‘red The case to #he Courf of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and fhe some was received on Transfer for Trial by The learned AddiTionaI Sessions Judge. 4. Learned Trial CourT framed charge under SecTion 302/34 or in The alTernaTive 302 and SecTion 323/34 of The IPC againsf The appellanTs, who abjured Their guilT. The prosecuTion in order To esTablish The charge againsT The accused/appellanTs examined 14 wifnesses in all. ThereafTer, sTaTe‘menTs of laccused/appellanT were recorded under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. in which They denied The circumsTances appearing againsf Them in The prosecuTion case and pleaded innocence and false implicaTion. . 5. Learned Trial CourT offer hearing counsel for The respecTive parfies, convicfed 6i senTenced The appellanTs as menTioned in ”I, para-1 of This judgmenT. 6. Homicidal deaTh of Moujiram is noT in dispuTe. Even oTherwise, from The evidence of injured eyewiTness Karan Singh (PW-1), e§ewimess Jaguram (PW-2), Vipairam (PW-3), or. P.K. singh (Pw- 10), who examined The deceased and found one incised wound of size 12 x 1 x 1 cm vide injury reporT of Ex.P/8, and evidence of Dr. S. ChhafTerjee (PW—6), who conducTed posTmorTem over The person of The deceased and gave The reporT of EXP/6, in which he found one incised wound of size 13 x 1 cm x bone deep on The leff fronTaI region of Moujiram and also noTiced 8 cm long fracfure of fronTo parieTal bone, exfra dural haemaToma and sub dural Q u - haemafoma present on fhe same spo’r and opined fha? injury was caused by sharp edged object, cause of deafh was shock and excessive bleeding, as a resul’r of injury presenf over‘ fhe head and death was homicidal in na’rur‘e, homicidal deaTh of Moujir'am is es‘rablished. 7. Shri P.K.C. Tiwar‘i, Iear'ned Sr'. Advocate appearing for the appellants, argued that the FIR was iodged by Karan Singh, who sustained simple injuries in the same incident, however, there is no allegation against appellant Ramchandra that he caused simply injury to the complainant. Independent witnesses Jangalr'am Lodhi, Gangu Yadav, Ramnath Lodhi who intervened and whose names find place in the FIR that they have seen and heard about the incident, have not been examined by the prosacution. There is evidence that number of persons gathered on the spot, however, none of the independent witnesses has been examined, though available. It wasfurther argued that the alleged eyewitness Ramnath, Jaguram (PW-2), Vipatram (PW—3) were prOSecuted in connection with $.T.No.96/02 and were alsa convicted by the trial Court on the same date. Criminal Appeal No.612/O3 at their instance is pending before this Court for adjudication. The other eyewitnesses are namely Sukritdas (PW-5), T.B.Bai (PW-7) and Bhagwandas (PW-8). Karan Singh is son of the deceased whereas T.B. Bai is widow of the deceased and Jaguram is elder brother of the deceased and Vipatram and Ramnath are uncle and brother of the deceased respectively. Thus, all the eyewitnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution, are highly interested witnesses being cIOSe relatives of the deceased. 8". It is further argued that by the time, the complainant party reached police station, the appellants had already lodged report on 20.7.2001 at 23.30 hours against Vipatram, Ramnath, Jaguram and deceased Moujiram Lodhi. Both the appellants had sustained injuries, which is established from their medico legal examination reports of Ex.D-6A and D-8. Both of them sustained injuries over head, which caused bleeding. They were advised for X-ray and only affer X-my, in The absence of bony injury, if was described as simple in na’rur'e. There is evidence available on record 'rhaf Moujiram and Ramchandra bo’rh were carrying sficks and quarrel was sfar’red by Moujiram. The wi’rnesses examined by The prosecuiion have nof explained fhe injuries over The pers‘on of The appellanTs and as such, have suppressed genesis and origin of crime. Considering The evidence available on record and injuries over The persans of The appelIanTs, The proseéuTion sTory becomes suspicious and doubTful, and possibiliTy of exercise of righT of privaTe defence by The appellanTs cannoT be ruled ouT. Weapons of offence have noT been seized from The appellanTs and Therefore, The same cannoT be considered To be an incriminaTing evidence and The explanaTion in This regard ThaT The appellanTs IefT The weapon of offence on The spoT afTer The incidenT and The same were Taken by The complainanT, is nOT esTablished by reliable evidence. . AppellanT Tarachand has been convicTed under SecTion 302/34 of IPC. However, overT acT alleged againsT him is noT clearly esTablished as alleged eyewiTnesses Karan Singh, Jaguram and VipaTram have deposed ThaT Tarachand inflicTed injuries on The fooT wiThouT specifying The parT of The fooT, on which injuries were inflicTed, whereas, PW-7 T.B.Bai has alleged ThaT he caused injuries on The back. The above allegaTions againsT Tarachand do goT find place in The FIR. The docTor performing auTopsy has also noT noTiced any injury on righT or lefT fooT of The deceased. In These circumsTances, convicTion of The appellanT Tarachand under SecTion302/34 of IPC is liable To be seT aside. 10.Reliance is placed on The judgmenTs in The maTTers of Ranbaj sing}! Vs. Sfafe of Punjabl and sarvesh Nara/‘11 Shuk/a Vs. Daraga Sing/i and arhersf, \ s l 5703 O \. @\ 11. On The o’rher hand, learned counsel for fhe STa're has supported impugned judgmen‘r‘of The h‘icd Court 12.Reliance is placed on The judgmems in The maTTers of Babu/a/ Bhagwan ‘Khandare V5. 5fafe of Maharashfrf, Nama’eo Vs. Sfafe of Maharashfra4 and srafe of UP Vs. 5af1’5h5. 13.We have heard learned counsel for The parTies. We have also perused The record of The Trial CourT as also The impugned judgment is 14.The Trial courT relying upon The evidence of VipaTram (PW-3) and Dr. S. ChhaTTerjee (PW-6), who conducTed posTmorTem on The person of deceased Moujiram and proved his reporT of EXP/6, has held ThaT deceased Moujiram died homicidal deaTh. FurTher relying upon The evidence of injured eyewiTness Koran singh, eyewiTnesses Jaguram, VipaTram, T.B. Bai, has held ThaT There was some marpeef on Harlyali day beTween The accused persons and The inJured persons In relaTion To PanchayaT elecTIon and some announcemenT made by The KoTwar and in The same mcudenT, The appellanTs assaulTed The deceased wiTh sword and laThi and Thereby, caused his deaTh. IT has been furTher held ThaT afTer commiTTing The offence, The appellanfs lefT The weapons of l offence on The place of incidenT and ran away, which was Taken To police sTaTion by complainanT Karon Singh and The same was seized on being produced by Karon Singh on The daTe of,incidenT iTself. Anomalies presenT in The prosecuTion cose ore noT of such a naTure ThaT The whole prosecuTion case may be disbelieved. 15.PW—1 Karon Singh, injured eyewiTness of The incidenT, wenT To police sToTion wiTh KoTwar SukriTdas and lodged The reporT of EXP/1. He and his faTher Moujiram were referred To hospiTal for medical examinoTion. He was examined by Dr. P.K. Singh (PW-10) and his‘ medico legal eXaminaTion. reporT is Ex.P/10 ‘daTed L! i LN, \ l }llri 2 2007 AIR scw 6343 3 zoos scc (ca) 1553 4 2007 AIR scw 1835 5 $ (2005) 3 scc 114 l ‘ 21.7.2001, in which one abrasion of size 3 x 0.5 cm on The lef‘r elbow, one spindle shaped fenderness swelling on fhe lef’r elbow join'r, join‘r momen’r restricfed, were found. This wi’rness has deposed Tha‘r on 20.7.2001 on Hariyali day a’r obou‘r 6 pm he heard abuses being hurled in fron‘r of his house in ’rhe village 6a//Z He saw ‘rhaT Ramchandr'a wielding ,sword and Tarachand wielding lafhi, were orally abusing and fhrea‘rening his fa‘lher Moujiram. Ramchandra assaulfed his fa’rher wi‘rh sword on his head, whereas Tarachand assaUl‘led by laihi on bo‘l‘h his“ ‘rhighs. When he infervened, Tarachand assaul’red him on his elbow, leff leg and Thigh. His fa’rher sustained injuries over head and bo‘rh Thighs. Jaguram, Chandrashekhar, Rishi Kumar, Ramna‘rh, Mo‘riram, Salika, Sukrii’das, Daduram, Leelaram, T.B. Bai, Dwarikabai, Shankarlal, Vijay Kumar came fhere and infervened. On ’rheir arrival, bo’rh fhe accused persons ran away leaving sword and laThi. His faTher fell on ihe spof and became unconscious. He wen‘r To Police STaTion-PaThariya wiTh KoTwar SukriTdas and lodged The reporT of EXP/1. The police Took him and his faTher To PaThariya hospiTal, where They were medically examined. His faTher was, ThereafTer, referred To Bilaspur hospiTal, who died on The same day. ArTicle ‘A'—sword and ArTicle ‘B’-laThi, are The some weapons by which Ramchandra and Tarachand assaulTed his faTher. The same were seized vide EXP/2. He has also deposed ThaT The accused persons ossaulTed Them on accounT of PunchayaT elecTion relaTed grudge. In The cross-examinaTion, he has admiTTed ThaT PanchayoT elecTions Took place 1 %-2 years before The incidenT. .In The said elec‘i'ion, moTher of Ramchandra was defeaTed by Premibai and because of The above animosiTy, his faTher was assaulTed. However, he has denied The suggesTion ThaT afTer The PanchayaT elecTion, his faTher was noT on Talking Terms wiTh The accused persons. He has furTher expreSSed ignorance abouT any announcemenT made by The Village KoTwar. He has \\ denied ThaT when he came ouT of his house, he was accompanied by \\\7\ f f uiA. 4 Vipar, Jagur'am and Ramnafh. He has also denied Thaf The above Three persons accompanying his fa’rher had abused Ramchandm and beaf him, whereupon Tarachand came To save Ramchandra. He has also denied 'rha'r he came ou‘r wh‘h sword. How'ever, he has admif'red fhaf a case is pending againsf Jagur'am, Vipaf, RamnaTh and his father in connecfion wi’rh ’rhe same incident. He has denied ’rhe suggesfion Thai when he was Trying 1‘0 assauH The accused persons by sword, Moujir'am came in beTween and was hiT by sword on his head. He has accepTed The suggesTion ThaT The accused persons had aiready reached The police sTaTion when They reached There. He did noT see any injury on Their perSOn and he is noT aware if They were referred for X-ray. Omission in his FIR wiTh regard To Ieaving sword and IaThi on The spoT, assaulT by Tarachand on his faTher's Thighs, preSence of The villagers, whose names do noT appear in The FIR, The facT ThaT his faTher became unconscious and he broughT’ his faTher on a coT, have been poinTed ouT. He has denied The suggesTion ThaT Tarachand did noT assauiT his faTher by iaThi or sword‘ 16.PW-2 Jaguram has also deposed ThaT on The daTe and Time of incidenT, he was siTTing in his verandah when Ramchandra came There wiTh iaThi. He was fiiThiiy abusing for supporTing Moujiram in elecTion; AT ThaT Time, SukriTdas, PaTeI, Dadura, VipaTram and Moujiram were also siTTing. Ramchandra Tried To assauiT him by ,laThi, which he sTopped by his hand. ThereafTer, Ramchandra WenT ‘back To home and reTurned wiTh his broTher Tarachand. AT ThaT Time, Tarachand was holding laThi and Ramchandra sword. BoTh came There abusing. Ramchandra assaulTed Moujiram wiTh sword on his head, whereas Tarachand assaulTed Moujiram on his leg. Moujiram susTained injuries over head and leg and fell There. They Tried To inTervene and in The process, Tarachand assaulTed Karon Singh alsoby laThi on his hand and leg. ThereafTer, The accused persons ran away leaving sword and laThi on The spoT. \\.gie\r The incidenT, 8~10 persons of Moujiram's family wenT To \ police sfafion with KoTwar Sukr‘i’rdas. They also fook Moujir'am on cof. Moujimm was not able To speak; he was referred ’ro Bilaspur hospital. He also accompanied Moujimm To Bilaspur HospiTaI, where he died. He has denied ihe suggesfion That af’rer snm‘ching la’rhi from him, They bea’r Ramchandra and on hearing his shoufs, Tarachand came There and in’rervened. He has also denied ’rha’r he had consumed iiquor as i’r was Hariyali day andunder ihe influence of liquor, ’rhey had commi‘H‘ed marpeef. He has also denied Tha‘r sword belongs ’ro Karon Singh. He has further s‘ra'l‘ed That They had placed sword and IaThi over The coT, on which Moujiram was Taken To police sTaTion. Some insignificanT omissions have been poinTed ouT in his diary sTaTemenT of Ex.D/1 in The cross- examinaTion. 17.PW—3 VipaTram has also given similar version in his deposiTion before The CourT. 18.PW—5 SukriTdas is The Village KoTwar. This wiTness has deposed ThaT on The Hareli day, on being asked by Ghanaram, faTher of appellanT Ramchandra, ThaT caTTle are freely roaming in The village and causing damage To The crop, he/ had sTarTed making announcemenT. When he reached near The house of Mahila Sarpanch, he saw in fronT of house of Moujiram ThaT Ramchandra and Moujiram were engaged in argumenTs. AT ThaT Time, Ramchandra Tried To assaulT Jaguram by laThi, Jaguram snaTched his laThi and Moujiram assauITed Ramchandra by a bamboo sTick, whereupon Ramchandra wenT To his home and came back wiTh a sword and Tarachand came wiTh a laThi. Moujiram Tried To defend The assaulT by 6ed/ (bamboo sTick), as o resulT, sword fell in The mud. ThereafTer, Tarachand assauITed Moujiram on his head by laThi and RamnaTh assauITed Tarachand. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT he accompanied Moujiram, Deepak Ram, Jagu and Karan To‘ Police STaTion-PaThariya. Since Moujiram was noT able To walk, he ‘~/~ v ‘ was ‘l‘aken on a coT. Moujimm fain‘red a‘r Pathrigarh. In ’rhe cross- examina‘rion by *he prosecu’rion, he has admi’r'l‘ed Tha’r Ramchandr‘a was holding swor'd. He did not see injury of sword on The head of Moujiram. 19.PW-7 T.B. Bai has also been examined as an eyewifness. $he is wife of deceased Moujir'am. She has also deposed Thaf she saw ‘ The appellanfs armed wi1‘h sword and IaThi and assauh‘ing her ‘ husband. Though ’rher‘e is discrepancy in her examina‘rion—in—chief wi‘rh respec’r To assaul’r by The appellanTs on The persan of deceaSed and The injured wiTness Karan Singh. 20.PW—8 Bhagwandas has deposed ThaT Ramchandra and Jagur‘am wereengaged in or‘al argumenTs, boTh were holding laThi, Moujiram assauITed Ramchandra on his hand by 6e07, whereupon Tarachand came and inTervened. Tarachand was also assaulTed by RamnaTh by club on his head and Jagu assauITed Tarachand on his hand by laThi. ThereafTer, Karan broughT sword from his home. When Karan Tried To assauIT Ramchandra by sword, Moujiram sTopped his son and The sword sTruck on The head of Moujiram. This wiTness has been declared hosTile and cross-examined by The prosecuTion. 21.PW-4 BhagiraThi and PW-9 SanTram, are wiTnesses of seizure. BhagiraThi has deposed ThaT ArTicIe ‘A' - sword and ArTicIe 'B’ - iaThi were seized from Karan Singh aT Police STaTion - PaThariya. PW-9 SanTram has alsa deposed ThaT he recognizes Karan Singh; sword and bamboo sTick were seized vide EXP/2. I 22.PW-11 L.Tigga has proved The seizure of sword and IaThi from Karan Singh vide Ex.P/2. He has also admiTTed ThaT in The same incidenT, he had regisTered an offence againsT VipaTram on The basis of reporT of Ramchandra and afTer invesTigaTion charge sheeT of Ex.D/8 was filed againsT VipaTram, Ramna’rh Lodhi, Jaguram Lodhi and deceased Moujiram. He has alsa admiTTed ThaT sax The sTaTemenTs of VipaTram and Jaguram were recorded on x i / 11 26.7.2001 whereas sfa’remenf of Sukr‘ifdas was recorded on 9.8.2001 and sword was seized on 22.7.2001. 23.Lear'ned counsel for The appellanfs has impugned ‘rhe judgmen‘l‘ on the ground Tha‘r independent wi‘rnesses, whOSe names have been mentioned in The FIR hove no‘r been examined during ‘rrial. Convicfion is based on fhe evidence of PW-1 Karon Singh, PW-2 Jagurom, PW-3 Vipafram and PW—7 T.B. Bai, who are near relaTives of ’rhe deceased and are highly in’reresied wi‘rnesses. They had pariicipa‘red in 1‘he incidem‘ and assauHed The accused persons, as a resul’r, Vipafram, Ramna’rh and Jaguram were prosecu‘red and They have also been convic‘l‘ed by fhe frial Cour’r. They have nof offered any explanation with respect to the injuries preSent over the person of the appellants and in these circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants by placing implicit reliance on the evidence of aforesaid witnesses as they have suppressed the genesis and origin of the offence. 24.It is true that on the date of incident, on the complaint of Ramchandra, the offence was registered on 21.7.2001 against deceased Moujiram and the prosecution witnesses. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against Vipatram, Ramnath and Jaguram under Section 294, 323, 506(3) and 34 of the IPC vide Ex.D/8. It appears that in the same incident, some quarrel took place between the appellants party and the deceased ptrty, as a result, the appellants too sustained simple injuries. 25.In the matter of Ranbaj Slhg/Il, the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. took a definite stand that he along with his son Ranbaj Singh were fixing the branches of thorny bushes in the field to save their crop from strayed cattle of the deceased party. The deceased party came there and objected to fixing of bushes, however, the son did not agree, whereupon \ deceased party started inflicting sota blows on the head of his 12 son, as a resuh‘, he fell on The ground. The deceased confinued ‘ro gave blows To his son and Therefore, in order To save his son, The accused gave Kandhali blow from iTs blunT side on The head of The deceased. On The basis of evidence available on record, iT was held ThaT The defence has subsTanTiaTed ThaT The son of The accused received injuries in The incidenT and The accused in order To save his son, gave Kandhali blow from iTs reverse side and Thus, righT of privaTe defence of The accused is esTablished from The pr03ecuTion evidence. The Trial CourT had convicTed The appellanT under SecTion 304 ParT—II of The IPC, however, The High CourT reversed The above finding and convicTed him under SecTion 302 of IPC. In These circumsfances, The Hon’ble Supreme CourT allowed The appeal and affirmed The view Taken by The Trial CourT and convicTed The appellanT under SecTion 304 ParT—II of The IPC. 26.In The maTTer of Sarvesh Nara/h Shuk/az, The Hon’ble Supreme C6urT in para—16 of iTs judgmenT held ThaT The evidence of hosTile wiTness cannoT be rejecTed ouTrighTly and boTh The parTies are enTiTled To rely on such parT of Their evidence, which assisTs Their Case. 27.In Babu/a/ Bhagwan Khandare3 while considering The effecT of non- explanaTion of injuries on accused by The prosecuTion, iT has been held ThaT mere non-explanaTion of The injuries by The prosecuTion may noT affecT The prosecuTion in all cases. This principle applies To cases where The injuries susTained by The accuSed are minor and superficial or where The evidence is so clear and cogenT, s0 independenT and disinTeresTed, so probable, consisTenT and crediTworThy, ThaT iT far ouTweighs The effecT of The omission on The parT of The prosecuTion To explain The injuries. While considering wheTher The righT of privaTe defence is available To an accuSed or noT, iT has been- held ThaT The injuries susTained by The accused, The imminence of ThreaT To his safeTy, The injuries cau3ed by The accused dnd The circumsTances wheTher The 13 accusad had fime ’ro have recourse To public aufhor‘ifies, are all relevanf fac’ror‘s To be considered. ‘ 28.In the case of Namdea", i’r has been held Tha’r a wifness who is r'ela‘rive of The deceased or vic’rim of a crime canno’r be charac‘rerized as 'in’reres’red'. The Term ‘in’reresfed’ posTulafes ’rha‘r The wiTness has some direcT or indirecT ‘inTeresT in having The accused somehow or oTher convicTed due To animus or for some oTher oblique moTive. However, The evidence of reIaTive wiTness musT be scruTinized carefully. If The evidence is found To be inTrinsicaIIy reliab|e, inherenTIy probable and wholly TrusTworThy, convicfion can be based on the ‘sole‘ TesTimony of such wiTness. \ Closa reIaTionship of wiTness wiTh The deceaSed or The vicTim is no