of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra)
wherein it is observed that, “the omission on the part of the
prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused
assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a
versions which competes in probability with that of the procession
one”. However, in the same judgment it is also held that, “there
may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle
would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the
accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear
and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable,
consistent and credit-worthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries”. In
the instant case, the evidence about stabbing deceased Dilip by
appellant – accused No.1 is very much clear and trustworthy.
Further, the N.C. at Exhibit-41 lodged by appellant – accused No.1
about the incident clearly indicates that, he had admitted therein
that he inflicted injury to the deceased with the help of knife. As
such, there cannot be any significance given for non-explanation
on the part of prosecution in respect of injuries sustained by
