ONKARNATH SINGH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 15-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SQ 
ONKARNATH SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. 
April 15, 1974 
[M. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Cruninal Trial-Failure to Rive explanation by prosecruiu11 witnesses of 
i11iuries on the accused-It total to fJrosecution case. 
Private dt!fencc-Riglu of.-
The fact of the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused person is 
a 
question of fact and not of law. 
Answer to such a question depends on the 
circumstances of ench case. The entire prosecution case cannot be thrown 
over-board simply because the pro~ecution witnesses 
had 
not explained 
the 
injuries on the person of the accused. 
Such non-explanation is a factor 
which 
is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution witnesses 
and the courts would scrutinise their evidence \vith care. Each case presents its 
own teatures. 
In ~on1e cases the failure of the prosecution to ':lccount for the 
injuries of the accused may underniine its evidence to the core and falsify the 
substratum of its story while in others it n1ay have little or no adverse effect 
on- the presecution case. 
It may also in a given case strengthen the plea of 
private defence set up by the accused but it cannot be !aid down as an invariable 
proposition of law that as soon as it is found that the accused had received 
injuries in the san1e transaction in which the cornplainant party vvas assaulted 
the plea of private defence would stand prirna facie established. 
In every case, 
the question is really one of appraisal of total eviJence c.tnd it:. effect. 
Jn the 
instance case, the totality of the evidence on record neither establishes even 
with reasonable possibility a right uf private defence in favour of the appellants 
nor throw a cloud of doubt dn the prosecution case. 
A right of private defence 
is essentially one of defence or self protection and not a right of repraisal or 
pnnishn1ent. It is subject to the restrictions indicated in section 99 which arc as 
important as the right itself. 
[89 I-H: 92 G-Hl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD!CTIO'I : Criminal Appeal No. 100 
Of 1971. 
[Appeal under Section 2 (al of the Supreme Court Enlargement 
of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970. Act 28 of 1970 from 
the Judgment and Order dated the 24th March, 1971 of the Albha-
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
bad High Court in Government Appeal No. 449 of l 967l 
F 
Nuruddin Ahmed & Shiva Puian Sin!ih, for the Appellants Nos. 
1 & 2. 
V. K. Krishna Menon, K R. Nambiar, Shiva Puian Sini;h and 
R. K. GarR, for the appellants Nos. 3, 4 & 5. 
D. P. Unil'al and 0. P. Rana. tor ti1e respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 
March 24. 1971. of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad con-
victing the appellants, by reversing their acquittal, on charges unlier 
ss. 302, 307 read with s. 1419 and 148, Penal Code. 
The prosecution case was that on May 18, 1965, at about 10 
a.m., Giria Singh (p W. 11) and Sidh Nath (P. W. 8) were pro-
ceeding to the Ganim for a bath which runs at a distance of one mile 
G 
H 
• 
• 
• 
' .. 
•
A 
r 
• 
• 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
ONKARNATH v. U.P. STATE (Sarkaria, I.) 
81 
from their village Tarapur. 
Onkarnath, appellant met them coming 
from the opposite direction. He asked Siah Nath as to why he was 
walking chest high. 
Sidh Nath replied that there was. not~ing ab-
normal in his gait. Onkarnath appellant then slapped S1dh Nath and 
roughly handled him. 
Girja 
~i,ngh intervened 
a.nd remonstrated. 
Onkarnath Smgh slapped him, also. 
Giria Singh was joint in residence and mess with his cousins, 
Jagdish Narain Singh (P. W. I) and D_eep Narain Singh deceased 
Jagdish Narain was employeli _ m the Engmeenng _ College of the 
Benaras University, and Deep Narain in the Diesel 
Locomotives 
Works, Varanasi. 
The pla-ces of their work being only four or five 
miles from this viJlage, they used to return home daily after work-
ing hours. 
On the day of occurrence, (May 18" 1965), when Deep Narain 
returned home at about 4-30 p.m. G!f1a Smgh complamed to him 
how Onkarnath had beaten him without any rhyme and reason. Deep 
Narain Singh assured him that he would censure and correct Onkar-
nath appellant. 
When Jagdish Narain (P. W. I) rrnched home at 
about 4-45 p.m.. Deep Narain told him how Onkarnath hhU beaten 
Girja Singh at about noon. Thereafter, the 
two 
brothers 
Jagdish 
Narain and Deep Narain proceeded 
together to their cotton field 
situated towards the east of· t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.