LexSRI KISHAN & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009) 6 S.C.R. 1184 .. A SRI KISHAN & ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2009 & ORS.) B APRIL 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss.148, 302 (Part II), 325 324 and 323 rlw s. 149 - Conviction under, by courts below - Interference with - Held: On facts, order of conviction and sentence awarded does not call for interference - All accused formed unlawful assembly armed with weapons which were likely to cause death, thus D conviction u/s.148 and application of s.149 does not suffer from infirmity - Non-explanation of minor and superficial injuries on accused would not affect prosecution case, when said accused have been acquitted. ss. 299 and 300 - 'Murder' and ·culpable homicide' not - E amoun~ing to murder - Distinction between. Criminal trial - Non-explanation of injuries on accused - Effect on prosecution case - Discussed. F 11 accused persons were convicted for offences punishable ulss. 148, 302 Part II r/w ss. 149, 325 r/w ss. 149, 324 r/w s. 149 and 323 r/w s. 149 IPC. Respondent- State challenged the acquittal of all the accused for the main charge of s. 302 r/w s. 149 _IPC. The complainant G also challenged the acquittal of main accused u/s. 302 and prayer for grant of compensation. The same were .. dismissed. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 1184 SRI KISHAN & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1185 ..,. < HELD: 1. On facts, it is clear that the conviction as A - done is appropriate. The sentence awarded do not suffer from any infirmity. [Para 31] [1207-B] 2.1. It cannot be accepted that in each and every case where prosecution fails to explain the injuries found on B some of the accused, the prosecution case should automatically be rejected, without any further probe. Failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the incident is not true or at c any rate not wholly true. Any non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non-explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the D prosecution. [Paras 11 and 13] [1197-C-D; 1198-E-G] Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai v. The State of Bihar 1968 (3) SCR 525; Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1976 (4) SC.C 394 and Vijayee Singh and OrS. v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 1459, relied on. E 2.2. Non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained .., by the accused are minor and superficial or where the .. evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and F disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries. Prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put G questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the "- · injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an accused. The H 1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. • A obligation of the prosecution to explain the injuries .. sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. It is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence. If the B witm~sses examined on behalf of the prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution comes with a definite c case that the offence has been committed by the accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused. It is more so D when the injuries are simple or superficial in nature. In the instant case, trifle and superficial injuries on accused are + of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case, particularly, when the accused who claimed to have sustained injuries has been acquitted. E [Para 14) [1199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.