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

2026 Supreme(All) 546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Shakar and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2855 of 1984
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sanjay Goswami, Syed Shahnawaz Shah
For the Respondent: Kamal Kishor Mishra

In a cross-case, the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused creates a fatal lacuna in the prosecution's evidence. Such suppression of material facts and the true genesis of the occurrence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Criminal appeal - Conviction based on suppressed evidence - Failure of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by accused in a cross-case - Effect on prosecution story. (Paras 36, 40, 41)

(B) Right of Private Defence - Principles governing - Subjective perception of threat - Not to be scrutinized with microscopic precision - Proportionality of force used in self-preservation. (Paras 46, 47)

(C) Burden of Proof - Prosecution must present the truth - Suppression of material facts regarding the genesis of an encounter creates reasonable doubt. (Paras 51, 52)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a trial court judgment convicting multiple individuals for rioting, murder, and attempted murder. The incident occurred during an election period where two conflicting groups engaged in a physical dispute. While individuals from one group were injured and one succumbed to death, the other group involved also sustained significant injuries. The prosecution failed to account for or explain these injuries on the accused, and both parties had lodged cross-complaints regarding the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused, which is a critical omission in a cross-case. This suppression of material facts, coupled with contradictory statements regarding the immediate cause of the dispute, indicated that the prosecution had not presented the true version of the incident. The court held that the accused individuals were entitled to the benefit of doubt where the prosecution concealed the genesis of the occurrence.

Issues: Whether the prosecution's failure to explain the injuriessustained by the accused in a cross-case renders the entire case doubtful; whether the accused were justified in asserting the right of private defence.

Ratio Decidendi: The right of private defence is a valuable right recognized by law to protect life and liberty. A person faced with an imminent threat is not expected to modulate their response with mathematical exactitude. When the prosecution suppresses injuries on the accused side in a cross-case, it casts severe doubt on the reliability of the entire prosecution narrative, as the initial aggressor and the origin of the conflict remain shrouded in uncertainty, thereby entitling the accused to an acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment and order of the trial court are set aside, and the appellants are acquitted.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and initial case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. evidentiary assessment of witness testimonies and medical reports. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. summary of rival contentions and established grounds for appeal. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. analysis of prosecution's failure to explain cross-case injuries and suppression of material facts. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48)
5. legal standard for the right of private defense and benefit of doubt upon suppression of evidence. (Para 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. final acquittal and consequential administrative orders. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., by appellants Shakar, Yusuf, Unus, Irfan and Manjar against the judgment and order dated 09.10.1984 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.143 of 1983, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’), Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, Shakar, Irfan and Manjar were held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C. appellants Unus and Yusuf were sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. all the five appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and all of them were further convicted and sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by all the five convicts. During the pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant No.1, Shakar and appellant No.4 Irfan have died and the appeal against them stood abated vide order dated 03.08.2018. Therefore, the appeal has been heard in respect of the surviving appellants, Unus, Yusuf and Manjar.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the first informant, Kabir Ahmad submitted a written application (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad on 24.04.1982, stating therein that few days ago there erupted a dispute between him and Shakar over raising a wall, due to which, Shakar had developed a grudge against him. On 24.04.1982 at about 7:00 p.m., while the informant Kabir Ahmad, Nasir, Yamin, his nephew, sister-in-law, Smt. Bano and grandson Matloob @ Kallwa were present in his house, Shakar, Yusuf, Unus, Irfan, Fayyaz and Manjar, all natives of his village, reached armed with lathi and farsa. They started hurling abuses and upon objection, assaulted them with lathi and farsa. Upon alarm, Abbas, Taki, Ibrahim, Mohd. Sharif and many persons came and saved them. The condition of injured Nasir and Kallwa was very critical and the informant also sustained fracture on his left wrist.

5. Upon this information, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 51 of 1982, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 324, 325, and 307 I.P.C., was lodged at Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad, on 24.04.1982 at 9:15 p.m. The investigation commenced and the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-9). The injured were sent for medical examination. Kallwa, son of Nashir, subsequently died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. His inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. In post-mortem examination, three ante-mortem injuries were found on the body and in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and com

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