In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court observed that when injuries on the accused are not explained by the prosecution, it creates serious doubt about the credibility of the case and supports the accused’s plea of private defence.
The bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla made this observation while acquitting two surviving appellants, Lakhan and Deshraj, in a 48-year-old murder case titled Lakhan and Others vs. State.
"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," the Court stated.
Case Background
The incident occurred on August 5, 1977. According to the FIR filed by Rajaram, his cousin Pran was attacked with lathis by four villagers—Lakhan, Deshraj, Kallu, and Kaleshwar—when he was going to take a bath. When Rajaram and his brothers Prabhu and Chandan tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Prabhu later died due to head injuries.
The accused, however, claimed they acted in private defence. They said Pran and others came to their doorstep and attacked Deshraj first. In defence, they retaliated, causing injuries to the complainant party.
The trial court convicted all four under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. The appeal was heard only for the surviving accused, Lakhan and Deshraj, as the others died during the proceedings.
The High Court found that:
- The prosecution failed to explain the serious injuries found on the accused, which were confirmed by a government doctor.
- No cross FIR was lodged by the accused, but their injuries were medically examined five days later.
- The place of occurrence being in front of the accused's house indicated they were not the aggressors.
- The FIR was delayed by about 24 hours without strong justification.
Read Also:- J&K High Court Confirms Detention of Man Accused of Bovine Slaughter Amid Communal Tension
“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,” the Court held.
The Court also referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar and State of Rajasthan vs. Madho, emphasizing that unexplained injuries on the accused can weaken the prosecution's case significantly.
Finding merit in the defence plea and lack of credible explanation from the prosecution, the High Court acquitted Lakhan and Deshraj.
“The prosecution has not brought on record the true version of the incident… The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt,” the bench concluded.
Case title: Lakhan And Others vs. State
