Mandatory acquittal follows prosecution's failure to explain injuries on accused and suppression of incident's genesis.

The first informant, Kabir Ahmad, alleged that on April 24, 1982, the appellants (Shakar, Yusuf, Unus, Irfan, and Manjar), armed with lathis and farsas, assaulted his family over a wall dispute

One victim, Kallwa, died from head injuries

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the IPC

On appeal, the surviving appellants (Unus, Yusuf, and Manjar) argued that they acted in self-defence during an election-related clash and that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by their side

A cross-case (S.T. No. 112 of 1983) concerning the same incident was also noted

1. Whether the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons and their kin is fatal to the prosecution case

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the right of private defence based on the genesis of the incident and the nature of the injuries

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) read with Section 149 (Common Object) of the IPC

Principles of the Right of Private Defence (Sections 96-106 IPC) as articulated in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, which establishes that a person apprehending death or grievous hurt is not required to modulate their defence with "arithmetical exactitude"

Doctrine from Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, holding that non-explanation of serious injuries on the accused suggests the prosecution has suppressed the truth

The Court observed that while the prosecution witnesses claimed the informant’s party was unarmed, medical evidence proved the appellants (Yusuf, Manjar, Unus) and their mother (Smt. Jaffari) sustained multiple injuries, including incised wounds from sharp-edged weapons

The Court found the prosecution's "wall dispute" motive weak, noting admissions that the incident occurred during a sensitive Gram Pradhan election period

The presence of injuries on Smt. Jaffari—who supposedly did not participate—indicated the informant’s party were likely the aggressors who attacked the appellants' home

By suppressing these injuries and the true origin of the fight, the prosecution witnesses were deemed unreliable

The Court reasoned that the appellants had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, justifying their retaliation under the right of private defence

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, were set aside. Appellants Unus, Yusuf, and Manjar were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from their bail bonds after executing personal bonds under Section 481 of the BNSS (Section 437-A CrPC)