SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 30 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- at the time of the assault. Such is not even the case of the prosecution. We rule out this theory of counter defence at the end of any of the deceased persons because out of five deceased persons four were minor children. 110. If anyone could have offered any resistance, then it could have been the deceased Sangeeta. However, having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased Sangeeta, it is difficult to even say that she might have realised for even a second as to what was happening. 111. We see it from a different perspective. For the time being, we proceed on the footing or the assumption that the accused appellant wanted to do away with his wife and children. We fail to understand what could be the good reason for the accused appellant after the assault to cut the bodies into pieces. We find some merit in the submission of Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the accused appellant that it could be a sign of grave warning from the other side who belong to the upper-caste (Brahmins) as to how revengeful and venomous they could be. 112. In Dhananjay Shanker Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 596, in paragraph 10 in reference to the circumstantial evidence, in the case of murder, the non-explanation of injuries on accused by prosecution was held to be significant when there are circumstances which makes prosecution case doubtful. For the relevant purpose, the relevant extract of paragraph 10 is extracted as below: “10. ….But non-explanation of injuries assumes significance when there are material circumstances which make the prosecution case doubtful. Reference in this connection may be made to recent decisions of this Court in the cases of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing [(2001) 6 SCC 145 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1070] and Kashiram v. State of M.P. [(2002) 1 SCC 71 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 68]. In the present case, non-explanation of injuries on the appellant by the prosecution assumes significance as there are circumstances which make the prosecution case, showing the complicity of the appellant with the crime, highly doubtful.” [Emphasis supplied] 113. In Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281, it was observed: “6. …..In our judgment the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants.” [Emphasis supplied] 114. In another important case Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, after referring to the ratio laid down in Mohar Rai (supra), this Court observed: “12. …..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…..” 115. It was further observed that: “12. …..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