Allahabad High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by four convicts (only two surviving) against judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in 1982 whereby the convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 of the IPC, the Division Bench of Vivek Kumar Birla and Nand Prabha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeals, holding that the Trial Court did not duly consider the lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case and relied upon the testimony of the witnesses/ victims without carefully scrutinizing their testimony. The Court held that the prosecution not only suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence but also failed to explain the injuries of the convicts.
Background
In 1977, allegedly, the original victim, the informant’s cousin brother, was on his way to a pond for a bath when the four convicts assaulted him with lathis. Upon the victim raising an alarm, the informant, along with his real brothers, rushed to his rescue. When they intervened, the convicts assaulted them as well. Thereafter, due to the alarms raised by the victims, three more witnesses also came to their rescue. The informant’s real brother, who received lathi blows on his head and neck, succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.
Accordingly, an FIR was lodged, and upon receipt of the post-mortem report, the accused were prosecuted under Sections 302 and 307, read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Thereafter, the Trial Court sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the IPC and four years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Aggrieved, they filed the present appeals.
Due to the death of convicts 3 and 4, their appeals were abated in 2015, but those of the convicts 1 and 2 were heard.
Analysis
The Court noted that it appeared that a family feud existed between the parties. Several people were injured in the incident, including the convicts, but only the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The Court stated that since the prosecution had not proved the genesis of the occurrence, the prosecution case was doubtful.
The Court further noted that according to the original victim, the informant’s cousin brother, he was returning from the pond after bathing when he reached convict 2’s house, there he met all the convicts who were armed with lathis, and they began assaulting him. The said victim could not disclose any reason behind the alleged incident and what was the actual motive behind it. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses deposed that they did not see any injuries on the body of the convicts and did not give any explanation as to how the convicts sustained injuries. From the perusal of the record, it also transpired that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one day, which was allegedly due to fear from the convicts.
As far as the exercise of the right of private defence was concerned, the Court noted that, admittedly, when the original victim, cousin brother of the informant, reached the place of the incident, the convicts were sitting and enjoying hukka. The convicts got apprehensive and attacked the victim with their lathis in the exercise of their right of private defence.
The Court also noted that though the convicts received injuries on their bodies, no cross FIR was lodged by them. They were medically examined five days after the incident. It also transpired that all the injured were medically examined by the same Government Doctor, who was produced as a defence witness and proved the injury reports of the convicts. Thus, the said injury reports were neither fabricated nor forged. Additionally, the injuries of convict 2 could not be sustained by falling. The Court stated that these injuries could not be ignored as they were serious and testified by the Government Doctor.
The Court stated that the prosecution did not produce any independent witness and examined only two witnesses, the informant and his cousin brother, who were close relatives and interested witnesses. This created doubts about the prosecution story. Additionally, no injury report was produced to corroborate the claim that the informant’s other real brother received injuries as well despite being taken to the hospital.
After considering the material placed on record and the submissions, the Court stated that it appeared that even if the allegations against the convicts were accepted as true, they were still entitled to acquittal on the plea of personal defence because, admittedly, the incident took place when the original victim reached in front of the house of the convicts. Thus, it was the prosecution who were the aggressors. The Court stated that the convicts, in the exercise of their right to private defence, attacked the victims when they witnessed convict 2’s assault.
Further, the Court stated that though the Trial Court noticed the defence, it neither commented on the defence witnesses nor the defence exhibits, including the injuries sustained by the convicts. The defence proved its injuries that were caused in the same incident.
Thus, the Court held that the prosecution suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and failed to explain the injuries of the convicts. An adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution for not offering any explanation, much less a plausible one. The Court further held that the blame for the failure of the case fell on the prosecution because it did not bring on record the true version of the incident. In this regard, the Court referred to State of Rajasthan v. Madho 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396, Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394, and Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470.
The Court reiterated that in the case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Immediate lodging of the FIR removes suspicion concerning over implication of several persons, particularly when the case involves a fight between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case. The Court remarked that the non-explanation of injuries of the convicts created doubt as to whether the prosecution had brought the real genesis of the incident on record. Such non-explanation was a factor that had to be considered in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court had to scrutinize the evidence with care.
The Court further remarked, in some cases, 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 the 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.
Decision
The Court held that the Trial Court did not duly consider the lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case and relied upon the testimony of the victims without carefully scrutinizing their testimony from the correct perspective. The failure of the prosecution to explain the genesis and origin of the occurrence had the effect of the prosecution failing to bring on record the correct version of the event and creating doubt over their case. This failure was not examined by the Trial Court. The Court added that the defence had probabilized its version, which could not be overlooked. Thus, the findings of the Trial Court that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt could be sustained. Hence, the convicts were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, and the convicts were directed to be released from prison.
[Lakhan v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 2781 of 1982, decided on 02-05-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nand Prabha Shukla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: A.L. Agarwal, A.P. Singh, Lalit Kumar Misra, Man Mohan Mishra, and R.C. Kandpal
For the respondent: A.G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
