SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- prosecution case…..” 116. In Mohar Rai (supra) it is made clear that failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true, or at any rate, not wholly true. Likewise in Lakshmi Singh (supra) it is observed that any non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a nonexplanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., 1990 Cri LJ 1510. CONCLUSION 117. Thus, none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused. In Shankarlal Gyarasilal (supra), this Court cautioned -“human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions”. This Court has held time and again that between “may be true” and “must be true” there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict. [See Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., (2002) 7 SCC 317]. 118. Before parting with the case, we would like to place on record an observation of ours, touching an important aspect of the case. Without any hesitation and with disappointment, we state that the case on hand is one of most perfunctory investigation. It appears that the accused herein was provided with a legal aid. He might not have been able to afford a good and experienced trial side lawyer to defend himself. We have noticed that the cross-examination of each and every witness is below average. Questions, which the defence counsel was not supposed to put to the prosecution witnesses were put without realising or understanding the legal implications of the answers to such questions, more particularly, when they were not necessary. The defence counsel remained oblivious of the position of law that suggestions made to the witnesses by the defence the answers to those are binding to the accused. 119. Any defence counsel with a reasonable standing at the Bar is expected to know that cross-examination is not the only method of discrediting a witness. If the oral testimony of certain witnesses is contrary to the proved facts and if their testimony is on the face of it unacceptable, their evidence might well be discarded on that ground alone. 120. It is by far now well-settled for a legal proposition that it is the duty of the court to see and ensure that an accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence counsel, and in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, he is not able to engage a counsel of his choice,