IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, JJ.
Lakhan And Others - Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2781 Of 1982
Decided On : 02-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution story regarding the incident and injuries. (Para 4) |
| 2. details of injuries sustained by the victims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution's argument on evidence and witness credibility. (Para 8) |
| 4. defense arguments regarding the lack of evidence and injuries. (Para 9) |
| 5. court's analysis on the credibility of the prosecution case. (Para 10) |
| 6. conclusion on the failure of the prosecution to prove its case. (Para 11) |
| 7. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
(Nand Prabha Shukla, J.)
1. Heard Shri Man Mohan Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the surviving appellants, Ms. Mayuri Malhotra, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and perused the records.
2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was preferred by four convicts against the judgment and order of conviction dated 02.11.1982 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.162 of 1980, whereby all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 /34 IPC . Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Due to the death of appellant no.3 Kaleshwar and appellant no.4 Kallu, their appeals have been abated on 17.09.2015 and 06.04.2015 respectively. The appeal has been finally argued on behalf of the surviving appellant nos. 1 Lakhan and appellant no. 2 Deshraj.
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
4. The prosecution story in brief, is that:
On 06.08.1977 at 6:00 pm, the first informant, Rajaram lodged an FIR as Case Crime No. 134 of 1977 under Section 323 /308 IPC , P.S. Sarai Aqil, District Allahabad against four appellants stating that on 05.08.1977 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.
Rajaram the first informant, was the resident of Village Gourey, P.S. Sarai, Aqil, District Allahabad and accused Lakhan, Deshraj, Kallu and Kaleshwar were also the resident of the same village. Accused Deshraj and Kaleshwar were real brothers and Lakhan belonged to their family. Kallu was the brother-in-law of accused Deshraj. The deceased Prabhu and the injured Chandan were the real brothers of Rajaram. Pran was their cousin brother. An old enmity existed between first informant Rajaram and accused Deshraj. After an FIR was lodged, all the injured were referred to the District Hospital Beli, Allahabad and were medically examined on 06.8.1977 by the Medical Officer on Emergency Duty at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad.
The injured Prabhu was examined by Dr. B.B. Singh on 06.08.1977 at 11:55 pm. The injuries found on the person of Prabhu, are as follows:
“ 1. Lacerated wound 1” x 1/4” x skin deep on the left side, forehead.
2. Abraded contusion 1½” x 3/4” on the right side of face.
3. Contusion 2” x 1/2” on the right side of chest front middle.
4. Abrasion 3/4” x /4” on the right side chest front.
5. Contusion 4” x 1” on the face and upper part of the left thigh.”
The injured Pran was also examined by Dr. B.B. Singh, at almost the same time. The following injuries were found on the person of Pran:
“ 1. Abraded contusion 2” x 1/2” on the right side chest-front.
2. Abrasio
The prosecution must explain injuries on the accused in a self-defense claim; failure to do so creates doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
(1) Investigating Officer being a public servant is expected to conduct investigation fairly – While doing so, he is expected to look for materials available for coming to a correct conclusion.(2) Th....
Prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused undermines its credibility, justifying the acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
The prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused undermined the credibility of its case, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants under the benefit of doubt.
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's credibility, crucial for establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.