LI Network
Published on: November 06, 2023 at 13:11 IST
The Supreme Court, in a recent criminal appeal against a murder conviction, emphasized that the absence of an explanation for injuries sustained by the accused may raise doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s account of the incident.
A three-judge bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice BV Nagarathna, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, was reviewing an appeal challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that upheld life imprisonment for the appellants under sections 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
In this case, a violent altercation arose from a dispute involving a buffalo, leading to a serious confrontation. The complainant suffered severe injuries, and Madan lost his life when a group of armed individuals suddenly confronted them.
The Court observed that, according to the appellant’s version of events, they had reported an attack by the complainant party to the local police station. They claimed that a confrontation occurred on their way back, resulting in Madan’s death during a free fight. The trial court noted that no lethal weapons were used by the complainant party.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court’s observation, referencing the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976). It highlighted that in murder cases, the failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused can lead to several crucial inferences:
- The prosecution might have concealed the true origin of the incident.
- Witnesses who deny the presence of injuries on the accused may not be trustworthy.
- A defense explanation for the injuries on the accused could cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The Court further emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to clarify the injuries sustained by the accused is particularly significant when evidence is provided by biased or adversarial witnesses.
The Court stated, “The absence of an explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused would create doubt about whether the prosecution has accurately portrayed the incident’s true genesis.”
The prosecution failed to establish that there was a common objective to kill the deceased. Given the background related to the buffalo dispute the previous day, the Court considered the possibility that the accused parties did not necessarily intend to cause the death of anyone from the complainant party. Instead, they might have gathered with the sole intention of reprimanding the complainant party in response to the buffalo’s actions.
In light of these circumstances, the Court revised the conviction from Section 302 to Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
Case title: Parshuram v. State of MP