Non-Explanation Of Injuries To Accused Prima Facie Supports His Self-Defence Plea, Casts Doubt On Prosecution: Allahabad HC

Such omissions can impact the credibility of the prosecution's case and warrant a more cautious scrutiny of the evidence by the court, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla observed while setting aside the conviction of two in a 48-year-old murder case.

The Court, however, clarified that the significance of such non-explanation would vary from case to case. While in some instances, failing to explain the injuries on the body of the accused may severely undermine the prosecution's version of events, in other cases, it may have minimal or no effect on the overall strength of the prosecution's case.

Importantly, the Court noted that if it is established that the accused sustained injuries during the same occurrence in which the complainant was attacked, a plea of private defence becomes prima facie acceptable.

In such cases, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove that the injuries were inflicted by the complainant party in self-defence, rather than the accused acting in defence, the Court held.

The case in brief

As per the FIR, on 6 August 1977, Rajaram lodged an FIR alleging that a day earlier, his cousin (Pran) was attacked with lathis by four villagers [Lakhan, Deshraj, Kaleshwar, and Kallu] while he was on his way to take a bath at a Talab.

When the complainant/informant and his brothers [Prabhu (deceased) and Chandan] rushed for his rescue, they too were assaulted. While one brother (Prabhu) was hit on the neck and lost consciousness, others (including the informant) sustained injuries.

The incident was reportedly witnessed by some villagers who also came to their aid. The informant stated he was too frightened to report the matter on the same day as he and the accused belonged to the same village, with some of the accused related by blood or marriage. The dispute appeared to stem from an old enmity between the informant and the accused, Deshraj.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in August 1980, and charges were framed against all four accused persons under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, for the murder of Prabhu and charges under Section 307 read with 34 IPC for the injuries caused to Pran and Rajaram.

Before the trial court, the accused appellants admitted that they had assaulted the deceased/Prabhu in the exercise of their right of private defence. It was their version that while they were sitting in front of their house, the deceased and his brothers came to their doorsteps armed with lathies and assaulted Deshraj.

Furthermore, it was claimed that in order to save Deshraj, other accused/appellants intervened and assaulted the first informant and his brothers in exercise of their right of private defence wherein Pran and Prabhu had received injuries.

It was strongly contended that the severe injuries caused to the accused had not been explained by the prosecution, a fact which casts doubt on the prosecution's case, especially when there are only two witnesses of fact who are also interested witnesses.

High Court's observations

The Court noted that while several persons were injured and Prabhu was done to death as the prosecution had not proved the genesis of the occurrence, which makes the prosecution's case doubtful.

The division bench factored in that the prosecution witnesses, in their cross-examination, had deposed that they did not see any injuries on the body of the accused (all four), and they did not give any explanation as to how the accused had sustained injuries.

“The prosecution witnesses, in their testimony, have not revealed anything about the injuries sustained by the defence nor have disclosed the genesis of the occurrence. Though they had deposed about the incident but remained silent throughout on these aspects. The defence has proved its injuries which were caused in the same incident. Thus, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused, therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not offering any explanation much less a plausible one,” the bench noted.

Furthermore, after considering the material placed on record and the submissions advanced, the Court noted that even if the allegations against the appellants are accepted as true, they were still entitled to acquittal on the ground of the plea of right of private defence.

Taking into account the facts of the case, it noted that it was the admitted case of the prosecution that the incident took place in front of the house of the appellants when Pran was returning.

Therefore, it was the prosecution who was the aggressor, and since the appellants saw Deshraj (accused) being assaulted, they, in exercise of their right of private defence, assaulted Pran and all others who intervened.

“…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 Court observed.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the trial court failed to properly consider key shortcomings in the prosecution's case and relied on the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 without adequate scrutiny. It was observed that the prosecution did not clearly explain how the incident began, which cast a doubt on whether the true version of events was presented.

The Court added that the sequence and manner in which the prosecution described the incident appeared improbable, which further weakened its case.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal qua the surviving appellants, no. 1 (Lakhan) and appellant no. 2 (Deshraj).

Advocate Man Mohan Mishra, Amicus Curiae, appeared for the surviving appellants.

State Law officer Mayuri Malhotra appeared for the State-respondents.