SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2224

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


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.L. Agarwal, A.P. Singh, Lalit Kumar Misra, Man Mohan Mishra, R.C. Kandpal

The prosecution must explain injuries on the accused in a self-defense claim; failure to do so creates doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34 and 307/34 - Appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder - Conviction of appellants set aside due to failure of prosecution to explain injuries on accused and lack of independent witnesses - Court emphasized the importance of establishing the genesis of the incident and the right of private defense - Delay in FIR registration noted but justified by fear - Prosecution case found doubtful. (Paras 10-12)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Prabhu and attempted murder of Pran and Rajaram following an incident on 05.08.1977, where they allegedly assaulted the victims with lathis. The prosecution's account was supported by two eyewitnesses, both of whom were related to the deceased. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not established the true genesis of the incident, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellants. The injuries sustained by the accused were not explained, which was critical in assessing the prosecution's case. (Paras 10-11)

Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the injuries on the accused and the credibility of the eyewitnesses. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to explain the injuries on the accused raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative, emphasizing that the presence of injuries on the accused in the same incident suggested the possibility of self-defense. (Paras 10-11)

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction set aside. (Paras 12-14)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top