Important Point
Unexplained minor injuries on the person of accused persons in a case of free fight would not make prosecution wit-nesses unbelievable where prosecution side suffered serious injuries.

Judgment

P.K. Tripathy, J. - Having been convicted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 11/1 of 1988 under Section 307/34, I.P.C. as per the impugned judgment dated 31-3-1988 appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. As it reveals from the impugned judgment and the evidence on record that on 7-6-1987 at about 7 A.M. there was a quarrel and mutual fight between the prosecution party and the appellants on a piece of land in Bhadrapali locally known as ‘Amtibahali Tangar Danga Duli’. In that mutual fight both the parties sustained injuries and there were F.I.R. and counter F.I.R. The case in which the appellants are the accused persons that was registered as G.R. Case No. 239 of 1987 and after commitment that was registered as above noted Sessions Case No. 11/1 of 1988 whereas the criminal case in which the appellants party was the informant was registered as G.R. Case No. 240 of 1987.

3. According to the prosecu-tion allegation P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 9 sustained injuries. Amongst them P.W. 9 sustained stab below on the abdomen which was found to be grievous by the Doctor as per the evidence of Doctor Chittaranjan Sadangi (P.W. 7) and Ext. 4. Similarly, P.W. 2 sustained incised

injury as per injury No. 4 in the injury report Ext. 5, but that injury was simple in nature.

4. As noted above, appellants took the plea of mutual fight and relied on documents such as the F.I.R. (Ext.A), Chargesheet (Ext.B) and the documents relating to treatment and injury report (Exts. C to F) with respect to all the four appellants.

5. On assessment of such evidence on record the trial court while accepting the contention relating to a mutual fight found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. not-withstanding no explanation by the prosecution of the injuries suffered by the appellants on the ground that such injuries suffered by the appellants were minor and superficial. The trial court found that the prosecution evidence proves the guilt of the accused persons for attempting to commit murder of

P.W. 9 and in that process inflicting injuries to others.

6. Learned counsel for the appe-llants draws attention of the court to some minor discrepancy in the evidence of injured persons (P.Ws.) in support of his argument to grant a benefit of doubt arising out of the same. After going through the evidence vis-a-vis the alle-gation against the appellants, this court does not find any glaring contra-dictions so as to disbelieve such evidence relating to the occurrence. Apart from that, when it is the admitted case of the defence regarding a mutual fight, a contradiction relating to the consequence of assault is not a great importance so as to grant any benefit out of that to the appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the appe-llants also invites attention of the court to the injuries sustained by the appe-llants and stated that when each of them had suffered number of inju-ries non-explaining the same affects credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is seen from the injury reports (Exts. C to E) that each of the appellants suffered some lacerated injuries, swelling or abrasion, all of which were simple in nature. The prosecution witnesses should have explained the same. Non-explanation of the injuries by them only amounts to suppressing that part of the occurrence by them in which they dealt blows. For that reason, the prosecution evidence cannot be ignored in which they have explained about the injuries sustained by them. It is the normal human temperament not to make a statement by inculpating self. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to assess and appreciate the evidence accordingly. The trial court having done the job in proper manner in that respect, therefore, non-explaining the injuries of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses, so far as the present case is concerned, does not make the prosecution case doubtful or the evidence of P.Ws. unacceptable. In other words, this Court concurs