IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Where the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and the accused have suffered injuries inflicted on them by knife and bottles while two persons on the prosecution side have been killed, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused.
2. Where the totality of the circumstances brought on record do not point out to the guilt of the accused persons, they are, therefore, entitled to be acquitted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 324—Acquittals—Exercise of right of private defence—Injuries sustained by accused—It was obligatory on part of prosecution to explain injuries on person of accused—Prosecution had made all attempts to suppress a part of the occurrence—Genesis of the occurrence has not been proved—Totality of circumstances brought on record do not point out to the guilt of appellants—Investigating Officer did not explain as to why appellants were not put under arrest on the date of occurrence itself, despite the fact that they were admitted in the hospital—Cause for delay of about 4 days in arresting the accused has not been explained at all—Admittedly, an occurrence took place in which two persons were killed while others including accused persons received injuries—Trial Court found all the six accused before it to be guilty of commission of all the offences with which they were charged—On appeal, High Court upon recording a finding that there was no sufficient material to show that all the accused persons have committed offences u/s 302/149 IPC, convicted appellants u/s 302/34 IPC—Whether judgment of conviction and sentence passed against appellants is sustainable—(No)—Appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
       Held : The genesis of the occurrence is, therefore, shrouded in mystery. This occurrence, admittedly, took place, but who were thus initial aggressors, i.e., the prosecution witnesses or the appellants, is difficult to say. The High Court has found that the prosecution had not been able to prove the charge of noting. The appellants and others did not have any common object to cause death of the accused of the prosecution witnesses. We have noticed hereinbefore the nature of injuries on the person of the appellants. The first appellant received two stab wounds and also an incised wound over the scalp at frontal region. The appellant No.2 received deep cut wound and an incised wound over the scalp left side parietal region. The appellant No.3 also received an incised scalp wound over frontal parietal region. It is not denied and disputed that they were in the hospital as indoor patients for a few days. We have furthermore noticed hereinbefore that they were also arrested after a few days.(Para 18)
       In our opinion, the High Court committed a manifest error in invoking Section 34 of the Code. Once it was held that the appellants were liable to be convicted only for their individual acts, the question was required to be addressed, in our opinion, differently. The High Court failed to consider the question that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries on the person of the appellants. The High Court also wrongly held that the burden of proof in respect thereof was on the appellants.(Para 20)
       The High Court although saw that the injuries suffered by the accused were on the vital parts of their bodies but without discussing the evidences, brought on record held that the same were not sustained by them while exercising their right of self-defence. It is true that it is not for the prosecution to prove injuries on the person of the accused, in each and every case irrespective of the nature thereof, but in a case of this nature the same would require serious consideration as a plea of right of exercise of self-defence was raised. It is in that context that the apprehension of death or bodily injury in the mind of the accused persons would have to be determined having regard to the number of people assembled to take part in assaulting them, the manner in which they were assaulted, the arms used as also the situs of injury received by them. It is now well settled that a person apprehends death or bodily injury cannot be weighed in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons.(Para 21)
       The prosecution witnesses belonged to one group. They were supporting one influential person of the village, namely, Rajendran, President of Panchayat Board. There were motives and counter motives. The appellants were accused of defalcation of the temple property. They were said to have been running a brick-kiln unauthorisedly. The President of the Panchayat Board wanted a share in it. He not only saw to it that a heavy penalty is imposed upon the appellants, evidently a Panchayat meeting was called for as to reprimand the appellant No.1 for not furnishing of accounts. They were summoned by beating of drums. It may be that the appellants started the quarrel. The first appellant might have used filthy language against Rajendran. But it is difficult to believe that despite the fact that a large number of persons were present near the tea shop, the appellants would kill two persons one after another, without receiving any injury or threat to their lives or bodily injury or without having been not provoked by any of them or in any whatsoever manner. The fact that they were not armed is not disputed. It is not the case of the prosecution that they were carrying sticks with them. It is admitted that appellant No.2 all of a sudden picked up a small knife from the shop of P.W.4. The knife has not been identified in the court. The accusation made as against the appellant No.3 that he had assaulted the 2nd deceased with a stick, is not corroborated by medical evidence. The 1st deceased is said to have received 11 injuries. The prosecution case is that only the appellant No.2 caused injury No.8 which was fatal. The deceased has received, according to the autopsy report, two injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. None of the appellants have been attributed of the said overt acts. The other eight injuries, according to opinion of the doctor, might have been caused by fall. On the body of the 2nd deceased only one injury was found which is said to have been caused by a bamboo stick by the appellant No.1, whereas according to the prosecution witness, Appellant No.3 also hurled blows on the person of the deceased. How and in what manner the appellants came to have such bamboo sticks in their possession had not been disclosed. All the appellants have suffered at least three injuries each.(Paras 27 and 28)
       Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the possibility that the appellants have exercised their right of private defence cannot be totally ruled out. We are satisfied that the prosecution had made all attempts to suppress a part of the occurrence. The genesis of the occurrence has, thus, not been proved. The totality of the circumstances brought on record do not, thus, point out to the guilt of the appellants. They are, therefore, entitled to be acquitted.(Para 33)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The occurrence involved multiple injuries inflicted on both the victims and the accused, with some victims killed. The prosecution was obliged to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, but failed to do so, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The genesis of the incident remains unclear, with the initial aggressors and the sequence of events not sufficiently established. The prosecution's inability to prove the origin of the occurrence and the motives involved casts doubt on the guilt of the accused (!) (!) (!) .
The injuries on the accused were on vital parts of their bodies, but the prosecution did not adequately explain how these injuries occurred or why they were not explained at the time of hospital admission. This omission impacts the credibility of the prosecution’s case and suggests the possibility of exercise of private defense (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the accused may have exercised their right of private defense, especially given the circumstances of the incident, the nature of injuries, and the absence of weapons or prior intent. The totality of the circumstances does not conclusively establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation and arrest procedures were delayed, with the accused being hospitalized for several days before arrest, and the reasons for this delay were not explained. This delay further undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution witnesses' accounts were inconsistent, and some did not support the charges or the alleged overt acts. The evidence did not establish a common object or intention among the accused to commit murder, and the possibility of individual acts or private defense was not thoroughly considered (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts failed to properly consider the right of private defense and the circumstances under which force was used. The injuries on the accused and their unarmed status suggest that their actions might have been in self-defense or proportionate to the threat perceived (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The overall circumstances, including motives, the nature of injuries, and the lack of weapons, favor the view that the accused did not have a common intention to commit murder and that their conduct was consistent with private defense. Consequently, the guilt of the accused was not conclusively established (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Based on the totality of evidence and circumstances, the appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of their convictions and sentences, and their subsequent acquittal (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Maiyoor is a small village situate in the district at Chenglepet. Appellant No.1 had a brick-kiln therein, which was being run in a land belonging to a village temple known as one Gangaiamman temple. The villagers were opposed to it. They complained thereabout to one Rajendran, who was President of the Panchayat Board. He, in turn, lodged a complaint with the Block Development Officer who imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the said appellant. The amount of fine was not paid. The President, Panchayat Board filed a suit therefor, which was decreed. Furthermore, allegedly a sum of Rs. 12,000/- collected by the villagers for temple festival and entrusted to the 1st appellant had not been accounted for by him. Rajendran convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for taking further action against the 1st appellant. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of the 1st appellant.

2. They, allegedly, having felt insulted and aggrieved over the convening of the meeting, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 2.00 p.m. on 22.7.1990 and questioned the authority of the said Rajendran to convene it. He used some filthy language whereupon Shanmugam (the 1st deceased), a nephew of the said Rajendran, asked him not to do so and express his grievance, if any, in the meeting itself which was to be held at 5.00 p.m. on that day. On that, the first appellant allegedly caught hold of his hands from the back side and asked the others to finish him once for all whereupon the appellant No.2, Sankar, brought a small knife from the tea stall and stabbed him (1st deceased) in his stomach. Krishnan, (the 2nd deceased), was coming from his agricultural field. He, on witnessing the said incident, cried. He tried to lift the 1st deceased whereupon the appellant No.1 with a Thadi (stick) assaulted him on his head. The third appellant is said to have assaulted Krishnan with another stick on his shoulder. He also fell down. P.W.1-Gajendran, P.W.2-Elumalai, P.W.3-Paramasivam and P.W.10-Chandran, were sitting near a tea stall. They went to the place of occurrence and made an attempt to lift the two deceased persons. The appellant then, allegedly, threatened them also. One Mohan, who allegedly had come with the appellants is said to have assaulted P.W.1 with a stick. The appellant No.3 is said to have stabbed P.W.3 on his back and when P.W.2 came near him, caused injury on his right hand fingers. Accused No.4, who is not an appellant before us, is said to have caused a cut injury on the head of P.W.10. The appellants allegedly fled from the scene after the prosecution witnesses started assaulting them with stones and sticks.

3. Indisputably, all the appellants were also injured. They went to hospital and in view of the nature of injuries on their persons were admitted as indoor patients. The hospital registers indicate that they were admitted in the hospital at about 4.00 p.m. In the Accident Register the nature of injuries on their persons were said to have been caused by knife and bottle. The injuries on the person of the appellants herein were found by the attending doctors as under :

“Appellant No. 1:

1)Stab wound extending to the muscle 3 x 2 cms. over the left thigh.

2)Stab wound extending to the muscle and (NC) 5 x 6 cms. over the left fore arm

3)Incised wound over the scalp over frontal region 6 x 1 cms.

Appellant No. 2:

1)Deep cut wound 5 x 6 cms. over the left knee joint.

2)Incised wound over the scalp left side parietal region 4 x 5 cms.

Appellant No. 3:

1)Incised scalp over the front parietal region 7 x 1 cms.”

4. The prosecution witnesses, together with the deceaseds, also came to the hospital. The said Rajendran also came to the hospital at 7.00 p.m. A detailed First Information Report was lodged by P.W. 1 at about 8.00 p.m. He gave the history about the dispute between the parties as noticed hereinbefore in the First Information Report. He stated about the incident in great details.

5. Although, the appellants were admitted as in-door

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 321

Cases Referred (3)