IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the law or the invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence the prosecution has to explain the injuries, failure of which will mean that prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder case - Whether it is an invarible rule that whenever an accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence, the prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on its failure to do so, the prosecution case should be disbelieved? - (No, if the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this obligation will not arise)
       Held, that the question as to the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an invariable' rule that the prosecution has' to explain' the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is undoubtedly on the prosecution. The accused is not bound to say anything in defence. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the court in proof of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, the question of the obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and in what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. (Para 8)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34-Conviction under - Appeal-Non-mention of appellant's name in FIR - Failure of P. Ws, to identify the appellant in the T.I. parade - Identification in court -Not of any value-Conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 13)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Murder case - Common intention under section 34 is not by itself an offence-No overt act has been attributed to the two appellants-Non-mention of their names ill the evidence as to their participation in the occurrence-They were known to the eye-witnesses-Mere presence at the place of occurrence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction. (Para 14)
       Result-
       Orders accordingly.

JUDGMENT

Dutta, J. -These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court affirming the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, convicting all the appellants under sections 302/34 IPC and section 27 of the Arme; Act and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively and further convicting the appellant Hare Krishna Singh under section 379 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three years; all the sentences are to run concurrently. The accused included two persons having the same name Paras Singh, one of village Dhobaha, brother-in-Jaw of Hare Krishna Singh, one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1982, and the other of Village Birampur and nephew of Jagdish Singh, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 1982. We shall hereinafter refer to the said two persons as 'Paras Singh of Dhobaha' and ' Paras Singh of Birampur' respectively.

2. The prosecution case as appearing from the Fardbeyan or the FIR lodged by one Sarabjit Tiwary (P.W. 3), a social worker, on 12-12-1987 in the Arrah Sadar Police Station, was on that day at about 7.00 a.m. he was going to his brother-in-law Raghubir and just he reached near the main gate of the Tadar Hospital, he saw seven persons, namely, "(1) Hare Krishna Singh, resident of Dhanpura; (2) Shea Narain Sharma, resident of Berkhembe Gali ; (3) Ram Kumar Upadhya, resident of village Dumaria ; (4) Jagdish Singh's nephew of Birampur in militars service; (5) brother-in-law of Hare Krishna Singh of Dhobaha in military service" and two more persons whom he could not identify. The said persons were armed with rifle, gun and pistol, and were standing near northern side of the eastern gate of the hospital. At that time, two Rickshaws coming from the eastern side. In the front Rickshaw. Jitendra Chaudhary and another person named Lallan Rai, resident of village Maniya, were sitting and in the rear Rickshaws there were two girls. As the Rickshaw of Jitendra Chaudhary came near the persons mentioned above, all of a sudden, Hare Krishna Singh fired at Jitendra Chaudhary from his gun, whereupon the latter fell down from Rickshaw with the rifle, which he was carrying with him. The other persons also fired upon Jitendra Chaudhary along with Hare Krishna Singh, as a result of which he died. After that Hare Krishna Singh picked up the rifle of Jitendra Chaudhary and touching his body said, "He is dead, let us take to our heels". It may be mentioned here that the two girls referred to in the Fardbeyan or FIR are Premata Chaudhary (P.W. 1) and Sobha Choudhary (P.W. 2), sisters of the deceased Jitendra Chaudhary.

3. After investigation by P.W. 9, the charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants and they were put up for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 were eye witnesses. The defence of Hare Krishna Singh was that he was going to Patna along with the appellant Ram Kumar Upadhya and one Madan Singh in a rickshaw and when the rickshaw reached near the shop of' Sita Ram, he received a bullet from behind and fell down He looked back and saw that one Dipu Prasad and Ram Lal were firing, He also saw the deceased Jitendra Chaudhary, Chhatu Choudhary and Lallan Rai (P. W 8) firing from the eastern gate of the hospital. He examined five witnesses, D.Ws 1 to 5, to prove the nature of injury sustained by him.

4. The defence of Paras Singh of Dhobaha was that he had not visited the village Dhanpura for the last fifteen years. The defence of other appellants is also a denial of their complicity in the Crime.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after an elaborate discussion and analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Regarding the injury sustained by Hare Krishna Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that such inj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTIt is not the law or the invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence the prosecution has to explain the injuries, failure of which will mean that prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the law or the invariable rule that whenever the accused sustains an injury in the same occurrence the prosecution has to explain the injuries, failure of which will mean that prosecution has suppressed the truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence.