Allahabad High Court: Non-Explanation Of Injuries To Accused Casts Doubt On Genuineness Of Prosecution's Case

The Allahabad High Court has held that non-explanation of injuries to accused casts a doubt on the genuineness of the case brought by the prosecution.

The Court was considering a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code preferred by four convicts against the judgment and order of conviction whereby all the Appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, running run concurrently under Section 302/34 IPC and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed, "Thus non-explanation of injuries, on the persons of the accused, creates a doubt, as to whether, the prosecution has brought on record, the real genesis of the incident. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court has to scrutinize the evidence with care. Each case presents its own features. In some case, the failure of the prosecution to account for the injuries of its story, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect on the prosecution case. It may also, in a given case, strengthen, the plea of private proposition of law of universal application that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self defence by the complainant party."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate A.L. Agarwal while the Respondent was represented by Additional Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

On August 06, 1977, an FIR was lodged under Section 323/308 IPC, against four Appellants stating that on August 05, 1977 at around 4:00 pm, his cousin brother, Pran, was on his way to Vikrama Talab to wash his body. The villagers Lakhan, Deshraj, Kaleshwar and Kallu, armed with ‘lathies’, assaulted Pran. Pran raised an alarm. Consequently, the first informant and his real brothers, Prabhu and Chandan rushed for his rescue. When they intervened, Kallu exhorted to assault them and accordingly the co-accused assaulted the first informant and his brothers. When they raised an alarm and cried, the witnesses Shukru, Gurudeen, Bhaiyalal also reached to the spot for their rescue. His brother, Prabhu had received lathi blows on his neck, who fell unconscious.

The first informant and his brothers had also received lathi blows on their head, hands and back. As the first informant was extremely sacred, he did not go to the Police Station to lodge the first information report on the same date. The deceased Prabhu and the injured Chandan were the real brothers of Rajaram, the first informant. Pran was their cousin brother. An old enmity existed between first informant Rajaram and accused Deshraj as per claims. Following the incident, after an FIR was lodged, all the injured were referred to the District Hospital and were medically examined. In Doctors’ opinion, the cause of death was as a result of injury of head and brain. After the receipt of the post mortem report, the Accused were prosecuted under section 304 IPC read with section 323 IPC.

While Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Counsel for Defense submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the occurrence, therefore, the Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and should be acquitted. It was submitted that though the accused had caused injuries but it was caused in exercise of their right of private defence.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that it transpires that family feud existed between the parties and though, several persons were injured and Prabhu was done to death but as the prosecution had not proved the genesis of the occurrence, which makes the prosecution case doubtful.

As far as exercise of right of private defence was concerned, it noted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that when Pran, the cousin brother of the first informant, was returning from the Vikrama Talab and reached in front of the house of Deshraj, then the incident took place. The Appellants accused were sitting in front of their house and were enjoying Hukka. The place of incident was in front of the house of the accused. They got apprehensive and in order to save themselves, they attacked Pran with their lathies in exercise of their right of private defence.

"It has also been noticed that though the accused had received injuries on their body but no cross FIR was lodged by them. They got themselves medically examined after five days of the incident. It also transpires that all the injured were medically examined by Government Doctor, Dr. S.P. Sharma, who was produced as D.W.-1 and proved the injury reports of Deshraj, Kallu, Lakhan and Kaleshwar. Thus, the said injuries reports were neither fabricated nor a forged one. The Doctor in his examination-in-chief deposed that the injured did not bring any Majrubi Chitthi nor any written report. He could not recollect whether after examining the injured, he had informed the Police Station or not. Though X-ray was advised to Deshraj but was unaware whether X-ray was done or not. The injury nos.1, 2 and 3 of Deshraj cannot be sustained by falling down. He had mentioned the duration of the injuries of five days after looking to the condition of the injuries. He categorically denied that the injuries were fabricated or a forged one.........The prosecution has not produced any independent witness and examined only two witnesses of fact, Rajaram P.W.-1 and Pran P.W.-2, who were close relatives and were interested witnesses, which also doubts the prosecution story. Though according to the prosecution version, Chandan had also received injuries and was taken to the Hospital but no injury report was produced to corroborate the same. The injures caused to the accused persons cannot be ignored as the same were serious injuries and even were testified by the Government Doctor, D.W.-1, who was an Emergency Duty on a Government Hospital, namely, Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Lakhan And Others vs. State (2025:AHC:69540-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate A.L. Agarwal, Advocate A.P.Singh, Advocate Lalit Kumar Misra, Advocate Man Mohan Mishra, Advocate R.C.Kandpal

Respondent- Additional Government Advocate

Click here to read/ download Order