Non-explanation of superficial accused injuries does not discredit credible injured eyewitness testimony.

On 1 November 1995, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a dispute arose at the weekly market in Korari Khurd, Unnao, concerning the collection of tahbazari from land allegedly belonging to Vimla Devi, wife of deceased Shiv Bakhsh Singh.

The prosecution alleged that Sabalbir Singh and his three brothers—Brijpal Singh, Rajpal Singh and Samarbir Singh—armed with lathis assaulted Shiv Bakhsh Singh when he objected to the collection, and also injured his brothers Phool Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Babu Singh when they intervened.

Phool Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Achalganj at 4:40 p.m. The injured persons were thereafter taken to the primary health centre, where Shiv Bakhsh Singh was declared dead. The offence was altered from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC.

The trial court convicted the three surviving accused under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment and six months’ simple imprisonment respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Shiv Bakhsh Singh and voluntarily caused hurt to the other injured persons, attracting Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC?

Whether the trial court’s findings of conviction and sentence were perverse or legally unsustainable because of the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, non-examination of witnesses, non-explanation of injuries to Sabalbir Singh, or the plea of private defence?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, concerning murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of establishing circumstances bringing a case within an exception such as private defence lies on the accused.

The Court relied on Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 SCC 490, Kripal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 3 SCC 651, and Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200, for the principle that non-examination of every witness, including an injured witness, is not by itself fatal where the evidence adduced is reliable and no prejudice is caused.

Relying on Laxmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643, and related authorities, the Court held that non-explanation of injuries on an accused does not automatically discredit the prosecution, particularly where those injuries are minor or superficial and the prosecution evidence is otherwise clear and credible.

Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required; reliable evidence is not rendered insufficient merely because independent witnesses were not examined.

The Court found the presence of Phool Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh established by their contemporaneous medical examinations, which recorded multiple fresh lacerations, contusions and abrasions consistent with lathi blows.

Their ocular account consistently attributed the assault to all four accused and was corroborated by the post-mortem evidence showing fatal cranial and facial injuries to the deceased.

The non-examination of Babu Singh was held immaterial because his injuries and presence were admitted in the defence version, and the prosecution was not legally required to examine every injured witness.

The plea of private defence was rejected. Although Sabalbir Singh had two injuries, they were simple and superficial, whereas the complainant party sustained twenty-six injuries and the deceased suffered fatal skull fractures and brain laceration.

The disparity in the injuries, absence of injuries to the alleged shopkeepers, and the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses contradicted the defence version that the complainant party was the aggressor.

The defence witness’s account was also treated as an afterthought because it had not been disclosed to the investigating officer or any authority before trial.

The Court further held that the prompt lodging of the FIR, dispatch of the special report, and the medical and investigative record did not support the allegation that the FIR was ante-timed.

Omissions in the inquest report and medical memos, such as failure to mention the crime number, were not substantive contradictions capable of undermining the prosecution case.

Previous enmity and the market dispute were treated as a motive requiring careful scrutiny, but not as a reason to discard otherwise consistent and medically corroborated testimony.

The plea of private defence, the alleged non-explanation of Sabalbir Singh’s injuries, and the non-examination of Babu Singh and independent witnesses did not create reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed. The convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC, together with the sentences of life imprisonment and six months’ simple imprisonment respectively, were affirmed, with the sentences to run concurrently.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged; they were directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith, failing which coercive steps were ordered for their apprehension and imprisonment.