Non-explanation of serious injuries on the accused creates doubt on the prosecution’s version and the incident's genesis.

The first informant’s nephew, Parwat (the deceased), was allegedly accosted by five persons (the appellants and one unknown) on 22.12.1982 at 5:15 p.m.

It was alleged that Madan Kumar caught the deceased while Prem Kumar @ Pappu hit him with a country-made bomb held in his hand.

Furthermore, when witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.7) attempted to intervene, appellants Mukund and Badshah allegedly attacked them with knives, injuring witness Kaloo and appellant Prem Kumar.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148, and 324/149 of the IPC.

The appellants challenged this on the grounds of unreliable eye-witnesses and the prosecution's failure to explain serious injuries sustained by appellant Prem Kumar.

1. Whether the testimonies of relative/chance witnesses (P.W.4 and P.W.7) are reliable and consistent with the medical evidence.

2. Whether the prosecution’s failure to satisfactorily explain the injuries on appellant Prem Kumar @ Pappu is fatal to the prosecution case.

Section 302 (Murder) and Section 149 (Common Object) of the IPC.

While relative witness testimony is admissible, it requires circumspect scrutiny.

Non-explanation of serious injuries on the accused suggests the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence (Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976)).

Adverse inference drawn from failing to examine independent witnesses (Hem Raj v. State of Haryana (2005)).

The High Court found the prosecution’s narrative physically improbable; specifically, the claim that Prem Kumar struck the deceased with a bomb held in his hand without injuring co-accused Madan (who was allegedly holding the deceased) was deemed unnatural.

The court noted material contradictions between the eye-witnesses regarding the presence of blood and flesh at the scene.

Critically, the prosecution failed to explain five incised wounds on appellant Prem Kumar's vital parts.

The "shield" theory—that witness Kaloo used the appellant as a human shield against his own companions—was found to be an afterthought as it was omitted from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

The court concluded that the medical evidence of P.W.7 (Kaloo) was delayed and the injury superficial/potentially self-inflicted.

The court held that the non-explanation of the accused's injuries probablized the defense version that the deceased’s party was the aggressor.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 06.04.1985 was set aside, and all appellants were acquitted. Appellants 1, 2, and 3 were discharged from bail, and Appellant 4 (in custody) was ordered to be released.