Unexplained injuries and a counter-case may undermine prosecution when the occurrence’s genesis is doubtful.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over a pathway, accused Nos. 1–11 formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Nataraj (PW.1), Ramesha (PW.2) and Vasanthegowda (PW.3) on 12 December 2012.

Nataraj sustained, among other injuries, a depressed fracture and loss of two teeth.

The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1–11 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC, but acquitted them of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC; it also acquitted accused No. 12 under Section 212 IPC.

Nataraj appealed against the acquittal under Section 307 IPC and sought enhanced compensation. Accused Nos. 1–11 appealed their convictions.

The Court considered Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 326 IPC, and Section 357(1) CrPC.

Liability under Section 149 requires proof of the unlawful assembly and its common object; mere presence at the scene does not suffice.

For Section 307 IPC, intention or knowledge is assessed from circumstances including the weapon, the body part targeted and the manner of assault.

Under Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons may support an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, particularly where the witnesses are interested or the defence version is reasonably probable; it is not an automatic ground for rejecting the prosecution case.

Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. and Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh likewise treat unexplained injuries as a factor to be assessed with the quality of the evidence and the competing versions.

For case and counter-case, the Court relied on the Karnataka Full Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa: ordinarily, both cases should be investigated by the same Investigating Officer and tried by the same Court, with each decided on its own evidence.

The Court found that accused Nos. 3, 6 and 11 had contemporaneous injuries, that the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain them, and that a counter-complaint and counter-FIR arose from the same occurrence.

These circumstances were considered together with the separate investigation of the two cases, the dispute between the parties, weaknesses in aspects of the eyewitness evidence, and uncertainty about the genesis of the incident.

Although the injured witnesses’ presence and injuries were established, that evidence did not remove the reasonable doubt concerning the accused’s participation and shared common object.

The Court held that grievous injuries to PW.1 did not, by themselves, prove the liability of every accused under Section 149 IPC.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the acquittal under Section 307 IPC or enhance compensation.

It set aside their convictions and sentences and acquitted them of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

The acquittal of accused No. 12 under Section 212 IPC was left undisturbed.