BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGHversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR

                   [2012] 6 S.C.R. 517


              BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH                           A
                             v.
   STATE OF CHATTISGARH TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR
         (Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2010)
                      JULY 10, 2012
                                                              B
   [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder- Conviction
of appellant and two others u/s.302 rlw s.34 by trial court -
High Court while upholding the conviction of appellant C
acquitted the other two accused - Plea of appellant that the
informant PW1 had turned hostile and the FIR not being a
substantive piece of evidence, discredited the entire
prosecution case; that the dying declaration made by the
deceased was not reliable and that the injuries found on the o
person of appellant were not explained by the prosecution -
Held: Merely because PW1 had turned hostile, it cannot be
said that the FIR lost all its relevancy - PW11 and PW14
substantially supported the FIR which further stood
corroborated by the medical evidence and the statements of E
other witnesses - Dying declaration made to PW14 was
reliable and cogent - Appellant cannot derive any benefit from
acquittal of the other two accused as the State did not prefer
any appeal against the decision of High Court ·~ Moreover,
besides the dying declaration, there a/so existed other F
circumstances which supported the view in favour of guilt of
the appellant - Prosecution did not render any explanation as
to how the appellant suffered injuries but the onus was still on
the appellant to prove that his explanation (that he suffered
injuries due to armed assault by the deceased) was correct -
 There was apparent contradiction of serious nature as to the G
weapon used in committing the said assault against the
appellant - One fact that completely stood established was that
appellant was present at the place of occurrence and also that
                            517                               H
    518     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   he had a fight with the deceased - These two circumstances
    provided full corroboration to the dying declaration, the
    statements of PW11 and PW14 as also the other material
    evidence led by the prosecution - Conviction of appellant
    accordingly upheld.
B      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313 - Object of -
  Held - The legislative scheme contained under the provisions
  of s.313, Cr.P.C. is to put to the accused all the incriminating
  material against him and it is equally important to provide an
  opportunity to the accused to state his case - It is the option
C of the accused whether to remain silent or to provide answer
  to the questions asked by the Court - Once the accused opts
  to give answers and, in fact, puts forward his own defence or
  the events as they occurred, then the accused is bound by
  such statement and the Court is at liberty to examine it in light
D of the evidence produced on record.
       The trial court convicted the appellant (A-1) and two
  other accused (A-2 and 3) under Section 302 r/w Section
  34 IPC for causing the death of one person in furtherance
E of their common intention and sentenced them to life
  imprisonment. On appeal by the accused persons, the
  High Court held that the oral dying declaration made by
  the deceased was not corroborated by the FIR as the
  names of A-2 and A-3 were not mentioned in the latter and
F that there was no legal and clinching evidence to
  implicate these two accused persons and acquitted both
  of them. In regard to the appellant, the High Court
  sustained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
  court.

G        In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his
    conviction contending that the injuries found on his
    person were not explained by the prosecution; that the
    informant PW1 had turned hostile and the FlR not being
    a substantive piece of evidence, discredited the entire
H
  BABLE@ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH            519
             TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR
-case of the prosecution; and that the dying declaration          A
 was not corroborated by other prosecution witnesses
 and as such the courts below could not have relied
 thereupon.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court                              B
     HELD: 1. Once registration of the FIR is proved by
the Police and the same is accepted on record by the
Court and the prosecution establishes its case beyond
reasonable doubt by other admissible, cogent and
relevant evidence, it will be impermissible for the Court         C
to ignore the evidentiary value of the FIR. The FIR, Ext.
P1, was duly proved by the statement of PW10, Sub-
Inspector. According to him, he had registered the FIR
upon the statement of PW1 and it was duly signed by him.
The FIR was registered and duly formed part of the                D
records of the police station which are maintained in
 normal course of its business and investigation. In any
case, it is a settled proposition of law that the FIR by itself
is not a substantive piece of evidence but it certainly is a
 relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the            E
Investigating Agency. Merely because PW1 had turned
 hostile, it cannot be said that the FIR would lose all its
 relevancy and cannot be looked into for any purpose. In
this case, PW11 and PW14 were the two persons who
 had reached the place of incident immediately after the          F
 occurrence. They were instantaneously told by the
 deceased as to who the assailants were. They
substantially supported what had been recorded in the
 FIR which further stood corroborated by the medical
 evidence and the statements of other witnesses. In these         G
 circumstances, the statements of PW11 and PW14
 cannot be discredited merely because PW1 has turned
 hostile. Besides this, in furtherance to the statements of
the accused persons, recovery of the weapons used in
the crime was effected. [Para 10) [529-E-H; 530-A-C]
                                                                  H
    520    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A      2. The dying declaration made by the deceased to
  PW14 cannot be lost sight of by the Court. To the rule of
  inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, oral dying
  declaration is an exception. The dying declaration in this
  case is reliable, cogent and explained the events that had
B happened in their normal course which was not only a
  mere possibility but would leave no doubt that such
  events actually happened as established by the
  prosecution. Once there exists reliable, cogent and
  credible evidence against one of the accused, the mere
c acquittal of other accused will not frustrate the case of
  the prosecution. Where the High Court, exercising its
  judicial discretion ultra-cautiously, acquitted the
  unnamed accused in the FIR, there the High Court for
  valid reasons held the appellant guilty of the offence. The
  High Court had recorded reasons in support of both
0
  these conclusions. Thus, the appellant cannot derive any
  benefit from the acquittal of the two other accused .
  persons as the State has not preferred any appeal
  against the decision of the High Court. Moreover, the
  case of the prosecution is not merely based on the dying
E declaration made by the deceased to PW14 but there also
  existed other circumstances which supported the view
  in favour of guilt of the appellant, i.e., the disclosure made
  by the appellant and the consequent recovery of the
  weapons used in the crime, the statement of Investigating
F Officer, PW13, the statement of the doctor, PW5, and, in
  fact, the own version of the accused in relation to the
  incident. [Paras 11, 12] [530-C-H; 531-A]
       Krishan Lal v. State of /:(aryana (1980) 3 SCC 159 -
G relied on.
        3.1. The accused-appellant was examined by DW1
    (doctor), who noticed six injuries on person of the
    accused and found that injury Nos.1 to 3 had been
    caused by some hard and sharp-edged weapon and
H
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH          521
              TR.PS.O.P KURSIPUR
injury Nos.4 to 6 were caused by some hard and blunt           A
weapon and all the injuries were caused within 24 hours.
Further, injury Nos.2 to 6 were simple in nature and for
injury No.1, X-ray of the skull, was advised but that also
was not found to be grievous. In view of the nature of
injuries suffered, the story advanced by the accused (that     B
while he was going in a drunkard condition, deceased
and another person launched an armed assault caused
injuries to his hands and head) can hardly be believed.
Where the deceased suffered fatal injuries, the accused
despite having been assaulted by two people with lathi         c
and weapon just suffered simple injuries. Thus, the
possibility of the injuries being self-inflicted or having
been suffered in some other way cannot be ruled out.
[Para 13] [531-D-G]
      3.2. The legislative scheme contained under the          D
provisions of Section 313, Cr.P.C. is to put to the accused
all the incriminating material against him and it is equally
important to provide an opportunity to the accused to
state his case. It is the option of the accused whether to
remain silent or to provide answer to the questions asked      E
by the Court. Once the accused opts to give answers and,
in fact, puts forward his own defence or the events as
they occurred, then the accused is bound by such
statement and the Court is at liberty to examine it in light
of the evidence produced on record. [Para 14] [531-G-H;        F
532-A-B]
     3.3. In the instant case, the accused had opted to
give an explanation. It was for the accused to satisfy the
Court that his explanation was true and correct. Both the
courts below concurrently rejected the explanation             G
offered by the accused. On the contrary, they have found
the said explanation to be factually incorrect. It was for
the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of
the appellant as to when, how and by whom they were
inflicted as also the fact whether they were inflicted         H
   522     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A during the occurrence in question or elsewhere. Of
  course, the prosecution. did not render any explanation
  as to how the appellant had suffered these injuries but
  that by itself was not sufficient to believe that the
  appellant was innocent and the explanation rendered by
B him is established ipso facto. The onus is still on the
  appellant-accu~ed to prove that his explanation is correct
  and in accordance with law. In the present case, the
  accused has stated that the deceased was carrying a
  sword and when he enquired from him as to why the
c other persons were quarrelling with and beating him, the
  deceased had assaulted him with the sword. Firstly, if a
  person is assaulted with a sword, there is hardly any
  likelihood of him to suffer injuries of the kind that the
  appellant had suffered; secondly, in the FIR, Ext.D-2,
  which he had got registered, it was specifically stated that
0
  the injuries were caused by lathi by the deceased. Thus,
  there was apparent contradiction of serious nature (as to
  the weapon used in committing the said assault against
  the appellant). Thirdly, the doctor (DW1) who had
  examined him, in his report had nowhere noticed as to
E how the accused had suffered those injuries. Even in his
  explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant did
  not state that he had consumed liquor whereas,
  according to the doctor, the appellant was smelling of
  liquor though he was not intoxicated. Lastly, the
F explanation offered by the appellant seemed to be very
  unnatural and opposed to normal behavior of a human
  being. The appellant claimed to be a friend of the
  deceased and that he had asked the deceased as to why
  others were quarrelling with him and had intended to help
G the deceased. If that be so, no person, in his senses, is
  likely to cause injuries to a well wisher, that too, with a
  sword. All these circumstances showed that the
  explanation offered by the accused was neither plausible
  nor true. [Para 15] [532-B-H; 533-A-C]
H
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH             523
              TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR

     3.4. However, because of lodging of FIR, Ext 02, and         A
his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., one fact
that completely stood established and is undisputable is
that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence
and also that he had a fight with the deceased. Once
these two circumstances are admitted, they fully provide          B
corroboration to the dying declaration, the statements of
PW11 and PW14 as also the other material evidence led
by the prosecution. If the appellant was carrying a sword
and others were carrying lathis, it is not understable as
to how could the deceased suffer as many as 15 injuries           c
including the incised wound, abrasions, amputation of
middle finger from terminal phalages and other serious
injuries and the appellant merely suffered six simple
injuries. This itself belies the stand taken by the appellant.
In any case, the deceased could not have caused injuries          0
to any other person as in consequence of the assault
 upon himself, he would have had no strength left to
cause any injury to others. Strangely, 'the accused denied
all other questions as 'maloom nahin' (don't know) or
'incorrect' and gave explanation which was not worthy
                                                                  E
 of any credence. [Para 16] [533-C-G]
                     Case Law Reference:
     (1980) 3 sec 159         relied on             Para 11
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal             F
No. 106 of 2001

    From the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal
No. 235 of 2001.                                                  G
     R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

   Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the
Respondent.
                                                                  ·H
    524         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The present appeal is
  directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature .
  at Chattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 15th November, 2006 wherein
8 the High Court maintained the judgment of conviction and order
  of sentence passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions
  Judge, Durg, Chattisgarh, convicting the appellants for an
  offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
  Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and awarding life sentence
C to them. Though there were three accused before the trial court,
  the present appeal has been preferred only by appellant/
  accused No.1, Bable @ Gurdeep Singh. While impugning the
  judgment under appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant has, inter alia, but primarily raised the following
  arguments:
D
           1.    The injuries found on the person of the accused
                 have not been explained by the prosecution. The
                 deceased having suffered serious injuries that are
                 stated to have been inflicted by the accused, could
E                not have been in a condition to inflict any injuries
                 upon the person of the accused. This leads to the
                 conclusion that the accused had been assaulted by
                 the deceased before the deceased himself suffered
                 the injury. The injuries were admittedly found on the
F                person of the accused. The prosecution has failed
                 to explain such injuries. This failure on the part of
                 the prosecution renders the story of the prosecution
                 not only improbable but unbelievable as well.

          2.     Assumi(lg, though not admitting, that the incident
G                has been proved, the accused was entitled 1<l the
                 right to private defence as he was attacked and he
                 caused the injuries in the process of protecting
                 himself. Thus, the contention is that the accused/
                 appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302
H                IPC and his conviction under Section 302/34 IPC
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH               525
    TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

           cannot stand the scrutiny of law.                         A

     3.     Further the appellant states that the informant Tariq
            Shakil, PW1, had turned hostile. The FIR not being
            a substantive piece of evidence, would discredit the
            entire case of the prosecution. The Courts, in the       B
            judgments under appeal, have failed to appreciate
            the evidence in its proper perspective and hence
            the judgments are liable to be set aside.

      4. Lastly, the dying declaration is not corroborated by
           other prosecution witnesses and fio details have          C
            been furnished therein. As such the Courts could not
            have relied upon the said dying declaration.

     2. Before we proceed to deliberate upon the legal and
factual aspects of the case with reference to the arguments          o
advanced, it would be necessary to refer to the case of the
prosecution in brief.

      3. On 14th May, 1999 at about 10.15 p.m., when Tariq
Shakil, PW1, was sitting in his S.T.D.-P.C.O. shop situated at
New Kursipur, Gurunanak Chowk, one Guddu @ Jiten Soni,               E
PW12, came there and informed PW1 that the accused Sardar
Bable is quarrelling with lshwari Verma in front of his shop. Upon
hearing this, PW1 closed his shop and went along with PW12
to the place of occurrence. The accused Bable was carrying a
sword in his hand and was running towards them. Being                F
frightened, both of them went towards a street. After sometime,
there was a noise that the accused Bable had caused injuries
to lshwari Verma and the said victim was lying in injured
condition. He was removed to BSP Hospital, Sector 9, by his
uncle Balwant Verma, PW14, where he was admitted. Dr. A.O.           G
Banerjee, PW2, had examined him and declared him brought
dead. A written report in this regard was prepared being Ex.P5.
The matter was reported to Bhilai City Police Station. Even a
telephonic message was sent. Sub-Inspector, Suresh Bhagat,
PW10, posted at that Police Station registered the case under        H
    526        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   Section 174 Cr.P.C., Ex.P-22. On the same day at about 12.15
    a.m. in the night, PW1 got the First Information Report (FIR),
    Ext. P-1, of the incident registered at Police Station Kursipur and
    a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. The Investigating
    Officer, Sub-Inspector P.N. Singh, PW13 took up the
B   investigation and went to the site. He prepared the site plan,
    Ex.P14, seized blood-stained earth, plain earth and a piece of
    chain of the watch and for that he prepared a seizure memo
    Ex.P-20. He also prepared the inquest report vide Ex.P4, in
    presence of the Panchas. The post mortem examination of the
c   body of the deceased was performed by Dr. S.R. Surendra,
    PWS at 1'1.30 a.m. on 15th May, 1999. The post mortem report
    was submitted vide Ext.P-8 which noticed the following injuries
    on the body of the deceased: -

          "1.    Incised wound 5 c.m. x % c.m. upto bone deep red
D                colour longitudinal on anterior its and middle of
                 scalp.

          2.     Incised wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. up to bone deep red
                 colour. Margin everted oblique anterior and right
E                side of scalp.

          3.     Incised wound 3 c.m. x % c.m. % c.m. above left
                 ear.

          4.     An abrasion 9 c.m. x % c.m. long below left ear.
F
          5.     An abrasion 6 c.m. x % c.m. neck colored below
                 the first wound.

          6.     Incised wound 5 c.m. x % .c.m. x % c.m. on left
                 shoulder laterally.
G
          7.     Incised wound 1 c.m. x % c.m. x % c.m. on left
                 shoulder anteriority.

          8.     Amputation middle finger from terminal phalages.
H
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATIISGARH              527
    TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

     9.    Ring finger also cut from terminal phalages from         A
           palmer aspect only.

     10.   Incised wound 8 c.m. x % c.m. x % c.m. red
           coloured on upper part and lateral surface of right
           arm.                                                     B
     11.   Abrasion 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. red coloured on lower part
           and lateral surface of right upper arm.

     12.   Incised wound 7 c.m. x % c.m. x % c.m. lateral
           surface of elbow.                                        c
     13.   Incised wound 15 c.m. x 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. deed
           exposed tendon and blood vessel visible through
           wound. On lower part and medial surface of right
           fore arm.
                                                                    D
     14;   Incised wound of 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. between right hand
           thumb and index finger. Bone of index finger visible
           through the wounds.

     15.   Perforated wound directed from behind, anteno            E
           laterally, 4 c.m. above the left knee joint. Wound
           entry cut of post medially size 4 c.m. x 3 c.m.
           oblique. bn dissection popliteal artery is found cut."

    4. The cause of death has been recorded as
unconsciousness, which occurred prior to death and had arisen       F
due to the injuries caused by some pointed sharp edged
weapon.

     5. The accused were arrested on the basis of their
disclosure statements Exts.P-15, P-16 and P-26. Weapons             G
used in the crime were seized and seizure memo was
prepared vide Exts.P-17, P-18 and P-27. Blood stained clothes
were recovered from the accused Bable and seizure memo
Ext.P-19 was prepared. Sealed clothes of the deceased
received from the Hospital were seized and seizure memo was         H
    528     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   prepared vide Ext.P.29. The seized articles were sent for
    chemical examination.

       6. It is further the case of the prosecution that the people
  around the place of the incident had seen the occurrence.
  Immediately thereafter, sister-in-law of the deceased, Janki,
8
  PW11 and uncle Balwant PW14 had reached the place of the
  incident. Balwant, PW14, had enquired from the deceased as
  to who were the assailants. After he gave the names, the
  accused persons were arrested and they made disclosure
C statements, as stated above.

        7. It is noteworthy that the appellant Bable @ Gurdeep
  Singh had stated that on the date of incident, he was returning,
  after collecting money for the milk supplied to the Thelciwala at
  about 1-1.30 a.m. in the night. He saw lshwari, Dalip, Dimple
D and Sage quarrelling at Gurunanak Chowk. He enquired from
  lshwari (the deceased), who was his friend, as to what had
  happened. lshwari, without any provocation, abused him and
  inflicted injury on his head with the sword that he was carrying.
  Thereupon, the accused ran away. Dalip and Prakash saw him
E running away. After some time of leaving the place, he lodged
  a police report of this incident giving details of the injuries that
  he had suffered and, in fact, he was medically treated and five
  stitches were put on his head. According to him, he had been
  falsely implicated in the present case.
F       8. The accused persons faced the trial and the learned
  Trial Court, vide its detailed judgment dated 27th February,
  2001 held all the accused persons guilty of an offence under
  Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing death of the
  deceased in furtherance of their common intention and
G sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Upon appeal by
  the accused persons, the High Court came to the conclusion
  that the oral dying declaration was not corroborated by the FIR
  as the names of two accused, namely, Pappi alias Arjun Singh
  and Vikky alias Vikram were not mentioned in the latter and
H
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATIISGARH               529
    TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

held that there was no legal and clinching evidence to implicate     A
these two accused persons and hence the Court acquitted both
of them. In relation to Bable alias Gurdeep Singh, the High Court
sustained the findings, judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Trial Court. Legality and correctness
of this judgment of the High Court dated 15th November, 2006         B
has been assailed in the present appeal.

     9. Reverting to the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant, we may refer to the fact that the FIR had been lodged
upon the statement of PW1. PW1 did not completely support
the case of the prosecution and with the permission of the Court     C
he was declared hostile. The contention is that the case of the
present appellant would also stand equated to the case of the
two acquitted accused persons and the High Court has fallen
in error of law in not acquitting the accused-appellant as well.
It cannot be denied that the FIR Ext.P-1 was registered upon         D
the statement of PW1 and he himself has not supported the
case of the prosecution, which creates a doubt in the case of
the prosecution.

     10. Once registration of the FIR is proved by the Police        E
and the same is accepted on record by the Court and the
prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt by
other admissible, cogent and relevant evidence, it will be
impermissible for the Court to ignore the evidentiary value of
the FIR. The FIR, Ext. P1, has duly been proved by the               F
statement of PW10, Sub-Inspector Suresh Bhagat. According
to him, he had registered the FIR upon the statement of PW1
and it was duly signed by him. The FIR was registered and duly
formed part of the records of the police station which were
maintained in normal course of its business and investigation.       G
Thus, in any case, it is a settled proposition of law that the FIR
by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence but it certainly
is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the
Investigating Agency. Merely because PW1 had turned hostile,
it canno! be said that the FIR would lose all its relevancy and
                                                                     H
    530     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   cannot be looked into for any purpose. In the present case,
    PW11 and PW14 are the two persons who had reached the
    place of incident immediately after the occurrence. They were
    instantaneously told by the deceased as to who the assailants
    were. They have substantially supported what had been
s   recorded in the FIR which further stands corroborated by the
    medical evidence and the statements of other witnesses. In
    these circumstances, we cannot discredit the statements of
    PW11 and PW14 merely because PW1 has turned hostile.
    Besides this, in furtherance to the statements of the accused
c   persons, recovery of the weapons used in the crime was
    effected.

        11. The dying declaration made by the deceased to PW14
  cannot be lost sight of by the Court. To the rule of inadmissibility
  of hearsay evidence, oral dying declaration is an exception. The
D dying declaration in this case is reliable, cogent and explains
  the events that had happned in their normal course which was
  not only a mere possibility but leaves no doubt that such events
  actually happened as established by the prosecution. Once
  there exists reliable, cogent and credible evidence against one
E of the accused, the mere acquittal of other accused will not
  frustrate the case of the prosecution. Where the High Court,
  exercising its judicial discretion ultra-cautiously, acquitted the
  unnamed accused in the FIR, there the High Court for valid
  reasons held the present appellant guilty of the offence. The
F High Court had recorded reasons in support of both these
  conclusions. [Ref. Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana [(1980) 3
  sec 159].
       12. Thus, we find that the present appellant cannot derive
G any benefit from the acquittal of the two other accused persons,
  with which this Court is not concerned as the State has not
  preferred any appeal against the decision of the High Court.
  Moreover, the case of the prosecution is not merely based on
  the dying declaration made by the deceased to PW14 but there
  also exist other circumstances which support the view in favour
H
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATTISGARH                  531
    TR.P.S.O.P. KURSIPUR [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of guilt of the appellant, i.e., the disclosure made by the             A
appellant and the consequent recovery of the weapons used
in the crime, the statement of Investigating Officer, PW13, the
statement of the doctor, PW5, and, in fact, the own version of
the accused in relation to the incident.
                                                                        B
      13. In the present case, the accused had led defence
before the Trial Court and examined as ma!ly as four witnesses
in support thereof. DW4, Head Constable Manharan Yadav
stated that he was posted as a Constable at PS Kursipur
outpost on 14th May, 1999. At about 22:45 hrs., the appellant           C
Bable @ Gurdeep Singh appeared and reported orally that
while he was going in a drunkard condition behind the
Gurdwara, lshwari met him on the way who posed to be a dada.
He along with Manpreet, who was armed with lathi, caused
injuries to both of his hands, head and then he had come to
lodge a report. In furtherance to this report, the accused was          D
examined by DW1, Dr. Praveen Chandra Agarwal, who noticed
six injuries on the person of the accused and found that inju,.Y
Nos.1 to 3 had been caused by some hard and sharp-edged
weapon and injury Nos.4 to 6 were caused by some hard and
blunt weapon and all the injuries were caused within 24 hours.          E
The appellant is also stated to have been smelling of liquor at
that time but was not intoxicated. Further, injury Nos.2 to 6 were
simple in nature and for injury No.1, X-ray of the skull, was
advised but that also was not found to be grievous. In view of
the nature of injuries suffered, the story advanced by the              F
accused can tiardly be believed. Where the deceased suffered
fatal injuries, the accused despite having been assaulted by
two people with lathi and weapon just suffered simple injuries.
Thus, the possibility of the injuries· being self-inflicted or having
been suffered in some other way cannot be ruled out.                    G
     14. The legislative scheme contained under the provisions
of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) is to put to the accused all the incriminating material
against him and it is equally important to provide an opportunity
                                                                        H
    532      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A to the accused to state his case. It is the option of the accused
  whether to remain silent or to provide al]swer to the questions
  asked by the Court. Once the accused opts to give answers
  and, in fact, puts forward his own defence f?r the events as they
  occurred, then the accused is bound by suph statement and the
B Court is at liberty to examine it in light of the evidence produced
  on record.

         15. In the present case, the accused had opted to give an
    explanation, as aforenoticed. It was for the accused to satisfy
    the Court that his explanation was true and correct. Both the
C   Courts below have concurrently rejected the explanation offered
    by the accused. On the contrary, they have found the said
    explanation to be factually incorrect. It was for the prosecution
    to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant as to when,
    how and by whom they were inflicted as also the fact whether
D   they were inflicted during the occurrence in question or
    elsewhere? Of course, the prosecution has not rendered any
    explanation-as, to how the appellant had suffered these injuries
    but that by itself is not sufficient to believe that the appellant is
    innocent and the explanation rendered by him is established
E   ipso facto. The onus is still on the appellant-accused to prove
    that his explanation is correct and in accordance with law. In
    the present case, the accused has stated that the deceased
    was carrying a sword and when he enquired from him as to why
    the other persons were quarrelling with and beating him, the
F   deceased had assaulted him with the sword. Firstly, if a person
    is assaulted with a sword, there is hardly any likelihood of him
    to suffer injuries of the kind that the appellant had suffered;
    secondly, in the FIR, Ext.D-2, which he had got registered, it is
    specifically stated that the injuries were caused by lathi by the
G   deceased. Thus, there is apparent contradiction of serious
    nature (as to the weapon used in committing the said assault
    against the appellant). Thirdly, the doctor (DW1) who had
    examined him, in his report had nowhere noticed as to how the
    accused had suffered those injuries. Even in his explanation
H   under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has not stated that
 BABLE @ GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF CHATIISGARH                533
    TR.PS.O.P KURSIPUR [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
he had consumed liquor whereas, according to the doctor, the          A
appellant was smelling of liquor though he was not intoxicated.
Lastly, the explanation offered by the appellant seems to be very
unnatural and opposed to normal behavior of a human being.
The appellant claims to be a friend of the deceased and that
he had asked the deceased as to why others were quarrelling           B
with him and had intended to help the deceased. If that be so,
no person, in his senses, is likely to cause injuries to a well
wisher, that too, with a sword. All these circumstances show
that the explanation offered by the accused is neither plausible
nor true.                                                             c
      16. But, because of lodging of FIR, Ext 02, and his
statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., one fact that
completely stands established and is undisputable is that the
appellant was present at the place of occurrence and also that
he had a fight with the deceased. Once these two circumstances        D
are admitted, they fully provide corroboration to the dying
declaration, the statements of PW11 and PW14 as also the
other material evidence led by the prosecution. If the appellant
was carrying a sword and others were carrying lathis, it is not
understable as to how could the deceased suffer as many as            E
15 injuries including the incised wound, abrasions, amputation
of middle finger from terminal phalages and other serious
injuries and the appellant merely suffered six simple injuries.
This itself belies the stand taken by the appellant. In any case,
the deceased could not have caused injuries to any other              F
person as in consequence of the assault upon himself, he would
have had no strength left to cause any injury to others. Strangely,
the accused denied all other questions as 'maloom nahin' (don't
know) or 'incorrect' and gave explanation which is not worthy
of any credence.                                                      G

    17. For the reasons aforestated, we find no merit in the
present appeal and the same is dismissed.

B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                      H