How to appreciate evidence if in criminal case accused has received injuries and if prosecution fails to explain how accused has sustained injury?

 In Indian criminal law, the failure of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused is a significant circumstance that courts must carefully consider while appreciating evidence. The legal position has evolved through various Supreme Court judgments that have established different theories and approaches.

General Principle

When an accused person sustains injuries during the same occurrence and the prosecution fails to explain these injuries, it creates doubt about whether the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused indicates that the prosecution may have suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence.

Key Legal Theories

Adverse Inference Theory

Under this approach, where prosecution fails to explain injuries on the accused, two results follow:

• The evidence of prosecution witnesses becomes suspect

• The injuries probabilise the plea taken by the accused

This theory was established in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976), which held that omission by prosecution to explain injuries assumes greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, or where defense gives a version competing in probability with prosecution's case.

Corresponding Obligation Theory

The prosecution has an obligation to explain injuries on the accused, but only when two conditions are satisfied:

• The injuries must be very serious and severe, not superficial

• It must be shown that these injuries were caused at the time of the occurrence in question

This principle was laid down in Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan (1979).

When Non-Explanation Creates Doubt

Non-explanation of injuries becomes particularly significant when:

• Interested Witnesses: The evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses

• Competing Defense Version: The defense provides an alternative explanation for the injuries that competes with prosecution's version

• Serious Injuries: The accused has sustained grievous or serious injuries rather than minor ones

• Suppression of Genesis: The prosecution appears to have suppressed the true origin of the incident

When Non-Explanation May Not Affect Prosecution Case

The mere non-explanation of injuries may not affect the prosecution case if:

• Clear and Cogent Evidence: The evidence is clear, cogent, and creditworthy from independent and disinterested witnesses

• Minor Injuries: The injuries sustained by accused are minor and superficial

• Strong Prosecution Case: The prosecution evidence is so probable, consistent and creditworthy that it outweighs the effect of omission

As established in Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2003), the effect depends on the overall strength and credibility of the prosecution evidence

Court's Approach to Appreciation

Courts must scrutinize the evidence with care when there is non-explanation of injuries. Each case presents its own features - in some cases, failure to account for injuries may undermine prosecution evidence to the core, while in others it may have little or no adverse effect.

The Supreme Court has clarified that it cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that prosecution must explain injuries in all cases. However, when serious injuries are found on the accused, it becomes obligatory on prosecution to explain the circumstances to satisfy the court about how the occurrence originated.

Burden of Proof Considerations

When accused persons sustain injuries and prosecution fails to explain them, it may strengthen the plea of private defense. The accused can legitimately claim right to use force when they see their family members being assaulted. However, the burden remains on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is not bound to say anything in defense.

Recent Supreme Court decisions continue to emphasize that non-explanation of injuries creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version and may lead to benefit of doubt being given to the accused, particularly in cases involving interested witnesses and pre-existing rivalry between parties.

Print Page