Recently, the division judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self-defence by the complainant party.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged by the first informant namely Rajaram against the four appellants in which it was alleged that his cousin brother, Pran was on his way to Vikrama Talab and 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. Furthermore, charges were framed against all the four accused persons under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for the murder of Prabhu and charge under Section 307 read with 34 IPC for the injures caused to Pran and Rajaram.
Contentions of the Prosecution:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution contended that the prosecution has duly established the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was furthermore contended that the date, time, place and manner of incident has been proved by the prosecution witnesses.
Contentions of the Defence/Appellants:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that the prosecution failed in establishing the genesis of the occurrence. It was furthermore contended that though the accused had caused injuries but it was caused in exercise of their right of private defence. No specific role was attributed to the appellants. All the accused appellants had also received injures in the same incident, which were not at all explained by the prosecution.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the prosecution witnesses, in their testimony, have not revealed anything about the injuries sustained by the defence nor have disclosed the genesis of the occurrence. Though they had deposed about the incident but remained silent throughout on these aspects. The defence has proved its injuries which were caused in the same incident. It was furthermore observed that non-explanation of injuries, on the persons of the accused, creates a doubt, as to whether, the prosecution has brought on record, the real genesis of the incident. Such non-explanation, however, is a factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and the Court has to scrutinize the evidence with care.
The court noted that as soon as it is found that the accused had received injuries in the same transaction in which the complainant party was assaulted, the plea of private defence would stand prima facie established and the burden would shift to the prosecution to prove that those injuries were caused to the accused in self-defence by the complainant party.
The court relied upon the judgments titled State of Rajasthan vs. Madho and others (1991), Lakshmi Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (1976).
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the findings of the trial court cannot be sustained.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Lakhan and Others Vs State
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Birla, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nand Prabha Shukla
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2781 of 1982
Advocate for the Appellant: A.L.Agarwal, A.P.Singh, Lalit Kumar Misra,Man Mohan Mishra, R.C.Kandpal
