The prosecution has a duty to present a true and complete picture of the occurrence, including explaining any injuries sustained by the accused, and the trial court has a duty to ensure that all material witnesses are questioned and their veracity tested.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Behera, J. - Concurrent findings have been recorded by the trial and appellate Courts that on April 29, 1977, the petitioner Kambhu Das caused grievous hurt to Pabitramohan Sahu (P. W. 1) by means of an axe and that the other petitioner Gandharba Das voluntarily caused hurt to Sugriba Sahu (P. W. 10) also by means of an axe after a quarrel. The petitioner Kambhu Das has been convicted u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the petitioner Gandharba Das has been convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The facts of the prosecution case and the plea of the defence have been set out in the judgments of the Courts below and need not be restated.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that after the occurrence, no report had been made to the police authorities by the victims or the witnesses to the occurrence and the injury sustained by the petitioner Kambhu Das which, as the evidence would indicate, had been caused during the occurrence, had not been explained by the prosecution and the trial Court committed an error of record that P. W 10 had explained the injury although he had not. It has been urged that a true picture had not been presented at the trial.

3. It has also been contended that as would appear from the record, the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 had gone unchallenged. Although they were witnesses to the occurrence and although no application is on record seeking adjournment of the trial, it would appear, as contended on behalf of the petitioners, that the learned counsel for the accused persons was absent on that day and the trial Court ought to have put questions u/s 165 of the Evidence Act to get at the truth.

4. The fact remains that no report had been lodged either by the victims or by any of the witnesses to the occurrence with regard to the occurrence and investigation had been started on the basis of a report made by the doctor (P. W. 7) as per Ext. 2. Thus no immediate report had been made by any one after the occurrence to the police authorities.

5. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for both the sides, there had been a case and a counter case and the evidence recorded during the trial of this case would indicate that the petitioner Kambhu had sustained an injury during the occurrence. P. W. 7 had examined the petitioner Kambhu on April 29, 1977 on a police requisition and had noticed an incised wound 1" X 4" X bone-deep 3" above his right ear which could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon. Ext. A was his report. This injury was on a vital portion of the body of the petitioner Kambhu and it could not be said to be superficial in nature. The witnesses to the occurrence had pleaded ignorance as to how and under what circumstances this petitioner had received an injury on his head. Although P. W 10 had not spoken about it, the trial Court committed an error of record by observing that P. W. 10 had explained as to how this injury was caused. The case of the petitioners was that the members of the other side were the aggressors and had been armed with dangerous instruments. While it is true that it is not necessary in each and every case that the prosecution should explain the injury on the person of an accused and the case depends on its own facts and circumstances, here is a case in which injuries on both the sides had been caused during the occurrence. There was no material to indicate that the injury on the person of the petitioner Kambhu had been caused by the other side in exercise of the right of private defence of person. The nature of the injury would give an indication that a sharp cutting instrument had been used while causing the injury on this petitioner. In the circumstances of this case, it was incumbent on the prosecution to explain the injury on the person of this petitioner and this had not been done. Thus a