Five men acquitted 26 years later after police’s failure to explain their injuries

“If the appellants alone had been the aggressors, there was no plausible reason for four of them to sustain such injuries, including grievous injuries on vital parts of their bodies. The prosecution has not even attempted to explain these injuries either through the ocular witnesses or through the Investigating Officer. The complete silence of the prosecution on this crucial aspect is not a mere omission but a deliberate suppression of material facts which strikes at the root of its case,” said the court on July 31, holding that the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused substantially weakened its version of events.

The case arose from a clash in Jalandhar on May 21, 2000, in which Balram Kapila suffered fatal injuries. Five men were convicted under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 149 (every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Justice H S Grewal said the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries sustained by four accused struck at the root of its case. (Image enhanced using AI)

Challenge to prosecution’s version

The appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to present the complete circumstances in which the incident took place. They argued that while members of the complainant party alleged a one-sided assault, the prosecution had completely ignored the injuries sustained by members of the accused side during the same occurrence.

The appellants further submitted that the incident stemmed from a long-standing dispute regarding the opening of a ventilator and that the prosecution had not placed before the court what they described as the true genesis of the occurrence.

Court finds omission significant

Justice Grewal observed that the prosecution had failed to place what the court described as the “true genesis of the occurrence” before it. The judgment held that the omission to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, viewed alongside the other evidence on record, undermined the credibility of the prosecution case.

The high court noted that four accused had sustained injuries during the same occurrence. The medico-legal evidence showed that Yog Raj had suffered grievous injuries, while the remaining injured accused had also sustained multiple injuries.

Despite injuries to four accused being on record, neither the prosecution witnesses nor the investigating officer explained how they were caused. The high court observed that where the accused sustain injuries in the same occurrence, the prosecution is expected to explain them, and failure to do so casts doubt on whether it has presented the true and complete version of the incident.

The high court observed that the occurrence was preceded by a long-standing dispute relating to the opening of a ventilator facing the house of one of the accused. The evidence showed that the issue had earlier been taken before the village Panchayat but remained unresolved.

Defence evidence supported appellants

The defence examined Dr Jasbir Singh, who proved the medico-legal reports relating to the injuries sustained by the accused. It also examined Amit Prasad, then Superintendent of Police (Operations), Jalandhar, who testified that he had conducted a departmental inquiry after inspecting the place of occurrence and recording statements of residents.

According to the departmental inquiry, the complainant party was found to be the aggressor. The high court clarified that while the inquiry was not substantive evidence by itself, it nevertheless corroborated the defence version when read together with the medical evidence, the admitted background of the dispute and the unexplained injuries found on the accused.

The prosecution alleged that the assault took place inside the Deorhi of Yog Raj, the recovery of blood-stained earth and the site plan indicated that the injured had fallen in the main lane. The court observed that even the trial court had accepted that the occurrence had taken place in the lane.

The court further noted that although the incident occurred in broad daylight in a populated locality, the prosecution examined only related witnesses and did not produce any independent witness from the locality.

“First of all, while taking into consideration the genesis of the occurrence, it appears that the prosecution has not presented the true and complete facts before the trial Court. The entire prosecution case is based on the premise that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and, without any provocation, attacked the complainant party. However, the evidence on record suggests a completely different version,” the court said.

After evaluating the entire record, Justice Grewal held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants alone were the aggressors. “The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record creates a strong probability that the complainant party initiated the confrontation and suppressed material facts regarding its own participation in the occurrence. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them,” the court concluded.