SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 29 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in fact guilty of the offences charged, and who would be convicted if the standard of proof were the lower civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Such acquittals are the price paid for the safeguard provided by the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard against wrongful conviction.” [Emphasis supplied] 106. We must remind ourselves of what this Court observed in the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1981) 2 SCC 35. We quote as under: “32. …..But, while formulating its own view the High Court, with respect, fell into an error in stating the true legal position by saying that what the court has to consider is whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances establishes the guilt of the accused beyond the “shadow of doubt”. In the first place, “shadow of doubt”, even in cases which depend on direct evidence is shadow of “reasonable” doubt. Secondly, in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypotheses is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” [Emphasis supplied] INJURIES ON THE BODY OF THE ACCUSED APPELLANT 107. It appears from the materials on record that the accused appellant was forwarded to the Community Health Centre (CHC) Dhaurhara, accompanied by the police constable Brij Mohan Singh for the purpose of medical examination on the date of the incident itself, i.e., 22.01.2010. PW-9, Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh had examined the accused appellant and in the medical certificate issued by him Exh. 44, he noted five injuries in or around the head and the neck region. The first three injuries noted are in the form of lacerated wounds, whereas the other two injuries as superfluous burn injuries. It was argued before us by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the injuries found on the body of the accused appellant points towards his complicity in the crime. It was also sought to be argued that the explanation offered by the accused appellant in regard to the injuries suffered by him is falsified by the circumstantial evidence on record. On the other hand, the defence also argued that the non-explanation of the injuries suffered by the accused appellant at the end of the prosecution is fatal. Thus, both the sides want to make the most of the injuries which were found on the body of the accused appellant. 108. We are of the view that both the sides are wrong in their own way. The settled law is that if there are serious injuries or grievous injuries found on the body of the accused then the prosecution owes a duty to explain such injuries and the failure on the part of the prosecution to explain may point towards the innocence of the accused. At the same time, the well-settled law is that if the injuries are superfluous or minor in nature then the prosecution need not explain such injuries. In the case on hand, the accused appellant has offered some explanation which could be said to be compatible with the defence he has put forward. As explained earlier, the accused has to establish his defence on preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC has said that he suffered the head injuries as one of the assailants out of the four had hit him on his head with the butt of the gun. PW-9, Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh in his evidence has said that the injurie Nos. 1, 2 and 3 resply could have been caused by the butt of the gun. PW-9, Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh has not said that the injuries suffered by the accused appellant were self-inflicted injuries. 109. The prosecution wants us to accept the other side of the story. What the prosecution wants to convey is that the accused appellant suffered the injuries while committing the crime. This is suggestive of the fact that the accused appellant might have suffered the injuries only if one of the deceased persons had retaliated in defence