Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Iluwa And Others - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 1985
Decided on : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amar Saran, Rajendra Prasad, S.C.Srivastava
For the Respondent(s): A.G.A

Prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the accused undermines its credibility, justifying the acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentencing - Appellants convicted for attempt to murder; appealed based on lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused - Court emphasized that non-explanation of injuries by prosecution undermines its credibility. (Paras 4, 23, 24)

(B) Right of Self-Defense - The court recognized the principle that injuries sustained by the accused must be explained; absence of explanation raises doubt about the prosecution's narrative. (Paras 20-26)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for grievously assaulting the informant, who suffered multiple injuries from firearms and blunt objects. The appellants argued they acted in self-defense due to past enmity. No substantial prosecution evidence was presented to contradict their claims. (Paras 4-11)

Findings of Court:
The High Court observed that the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries on the appellant led to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. It ruled that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 25-26)

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution's case was credible without explaining the injuries on the accused, and if self-defense was justifiably claimed. (Paras 22, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the non-explanation of injuries on the accused by the prosecution creates doubt and emphasizes the need for the prosecution to present a clear case. The benefit of doubt was given to the appellants. (Paras 24-26)

Result: Appeal allowed; convictions of the appellants set aside and they were acquitted.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. defense arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 16 , 17)
3. prosecution's stance on injury causation. (Para 18)
4. court's analysis on injury explanations. (Para 19 , 25)
5. final conclusion and acquittal of the appellants. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

2. Vide order dated 22.08.2025, the instant appeal on behalf of the appellant no.3 Munuwa has already been abated. Therefore, the instant appeal on behalf of the surviving appellants no.1 and 2 namely Illuwa alias Hari Shankar and Bilua alias Umashankar is being heard and decided.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 16.01.1985 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. No. 343 of 1983 whereby the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.

4. The brief facts as stated in the prosecution case are that on 28.11.1978 at 5:00 P.M., the informant- Chunni Lal lodged a report at police station Tindwari, alleging therein that he has gone to the agricultural land of Ram Avtar along with a villager Shiv Nandan to cultivate the land, which was taken on sharing. The accused persons namely Illuwa, Bilua and Munuwa armed with firearms came there at around 11:00 A.M. Illuwa came near the informant who was sitting there, Illuwa had fired upon him with a country made pistol due to which he sustained injury above the right eyebrow. At the same time, Bilua came there and started assaulting with lathi, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and legs. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the FIR was registered against the appellants Illuwa, Bilua and Munuwa for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The medical examination of the injured informant, who was conducted by Dr. V.P. Bhargava. During medical examination of the informant Chunni Lal, he found the following injuries :

“(i) Lacerated would 6.5 c.m, x 1 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. on middle of head 10 c.m. above the rest of nose.

(ii) Gunshot wound of entrance 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. on right side of forehead 2 c.m. above the middle of right eye brow.

(iii) Gunshot wound of entrance 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x 0.4 c.m. on right side of forehead 0.5 c.m. above two outer side of eye brow.

(iv) Gunshot wound of entrance 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m.on right side of face 1 c.m. above the upper lip.

(v) Gunshot wound of entrance 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. on right side of neck 5 c.m. below Loubule of right ear.Margin of injury to (ii) to (v) are inverted ± abraded collar.

(vi) Sub conjectival haemorrhage ± Ecchymosis of upper lid of right eye.

(vii) Red contusion 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. on left leg 2 c.m. inner to outer malleolus.”

5. As per the opinion of the Doctor – Injuries no. (i), (vi) and (vii) were simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Injuries no. (ii) to (v) were caused by fire arm and kept under observation X-ray advised.

6. With regard to the same incident, another FIR was lodged by Illuwa alias Harishankar alleging therein that he was having a previous enmity with Chunni Lal, the informant herein and he along with one Shivnandan came to his tube well and all of sudden started beating him with lathis. When he shouted for help, the witness Bala came there and they were chased. The accused persons ran away due to the assault by the said Chunni Lal and Shivnandan. He had sustained injury on head and left hand. Dr. V.P. Varghava had also medically examined the injuries found on the body of appellant no.1, Illuwa alias Hari Shankar. During medical examination of Illuwa alias Hari Shankar, he found the following injuries:

“(i) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. on left side of head 83.5 c.m. above the root of left pinna.

(ii)