SHAHJAJHAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 26-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAHJAJHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 26, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND R.V. RA YEEND RAN, JJ] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 34, 97, JOO, JOI, 302, 304, 323 & 324-
,,.. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 105-Conviction of accused for murdering 
c deceased and injuring two eyewitnesses-Plea of non-explanation by 
prosecution of Injuries on the accused and the exercise of right of private 
defence-Held, on facts, injuries on the accused are minor and superficial 
and hence, non-explanation of the injuries would not weaken the procecution 
case-Right of exercise of Private defence cannot be presumed on basis of 
injuries on the accused unless proved by the defence-Hence, conviction of 
D the accused upheld. 
A charge-sheet was filed by procecution before trial court against five 
accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 read with section 
·-
34 IPC for murdering the deceased and causing injuries on two eyewitnesses. 
-I 
The trial Court convicted an accused under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and 
E the remaining accused under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC. High 
Court, in appeal, modified the conviction of the accused from under section 
302 IPC to one under Action 304 part II IPC and confirmed the other 
conviction and confirmed the conviction of other accused. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, appellants-accused contended that the 
prosecution case should be rejected due to non-explanation of the injuries on 
the accused; and that their conviction cannot be maintained when the exercise 
of private defence was partly accepted by the Courts below. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by th accused may 
assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes 
in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, 
"" ... 
. 
cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from 
falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution 
H 
212 
SHAHJAJHAN v. ST A TE OF KERALA 
213 
cannot by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence. [Para 14) 
A 
Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar,[1968) 3 SCR 525; 
Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [1976] 4 SCC 394 and Vijayee Singh 
& Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR (1990) SC 1459, referred to. 
1.2. Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect the B 
prosecution case where injuries sustained by the accused are minor and 
superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and 
_¥ 
disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the 
effect of omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. It is 
not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained c 
by the accused in the same occurrence. It is for the defence to put questions 
to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. 
Trifling and superficial injuries on accused are of little assistance to them to 
throw doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. A bare perusal of the 
injury report shows that injuries were of very minor nature. The stand of the 
accused was that he was attacked is ruled out by the nature of the injuries. D 
Further, there was no case instituted against the deceased or prosecution 
witnesses. [Paras 15 and 16] (217-G, H; 218-A-B-C-D-E] 
-. 
" 
Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1972) SC 2593; Hare Krishna 
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1988) SC 863; Surendra Paswan v. State 
of Jharkhand, [2003) 8 SCC 476 and Anil Kumar v. State of UP. JT (2004) 8 E 
SC 355, referred to. 
2.1. Where the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be 
a reasonable and probable version satisfying the Court that the harm caused 
by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for F 
forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused. 
The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the 
burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour 
of that plea on the basis of the material on record. It cannot be stated as a 
universal rule that whenever the injuries are on the body of the accused 
persons, a presumption must necessarily be raised that the accused persons G 
had caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. 
y " 
[Paras 17 and 18] (219-C-D; 220-A] 
.., 
' 
2.

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