Non-Explanation Of Injuries On Accused Suppresses Genesis Of Occurrence, Injured Witness Testimony Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Karnataka High Court

"The existence of grievous injury does not automatically establish the participation of every accused in the act resulting in such injury or establish that all the members shared the common object of causing grievous hurt. The prosecution has to establish the unlawful assembly, its common object and the nexus of each accused with that assembly. Section 149 cannot be invoked merely because several persons were present at the spot, considering the fact that the incident took place near the house of the accused." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling dated October 9, 2026, held that the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence suppresses the true genesis of the incident, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G. Basavaraja observed that while the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries evidentiary weight, it cannot be accepted uncritically where the prosecution suppresses contemporaneous injuries sustained by the accused and conceals a competing counter-case.

The dispute originated from an alleged altercation on December 12, 2012, regarding a right of pathway through agricultural land in Mavinahalli village, leading to the registration of Crime No. 149/2012 against eleven accused persons. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, convicted accused Nos. 1 to 11 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while acquitting them under Sections 307, 427, and 504 IPC. The convicts challenged the conviction and three-year sentence in Crl.A. Nos. 2086/2018 and 2152/2018, while the injured complainant preferred Crl.A. No. 2251/2018 under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking conviction under Section 307 IPC and enhanced compensation.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly sharing a common object under Section 149 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and the non-compliance with statutory procedures governing case and counter-case vitiated the conviction.

Evidentiary Weight of Injured Witnesses Subject to Scrutiny

Examining the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court observed that the mere fact that a witness sustained injuries does not confer absolute infallibility on their evidence. The bench underscored that although an injured witness enjoys a distinct status in criminal jurisprudence, such testimony must still be tested against surrounding circumstances, latent contradictions, and evidence of a suppressed counter-version.

The court noted that PW.1 to PW.3 were admittedly embroiled in prior civil disputes with the accused over a pathway, rendering them interested witnesses whose testimony required rigorous judicial scrutiny rather than mechanical acceptance.

Concealment of Accused's Injuries Suppresses Genesis of Crime

The bench attached decisive significance to the fact that accused Nos. 3, 6, and 11 had sustained injuries on the very night of the occurrence and were medically examined contemporaneously. The court expressed serious concern that the prosecution completely omitted this fact during the examination-in-chief of the medical officer (PW.7), with the relevant wound certificates being brought on record only during cross-examination by the defence.

The High Court reiterated the celebrated dictum of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, holding that the omission by the prosecution to explain serious injuries sustained by the accused indicates suppression of the genesis of the incident and renders the defence version probable.

"The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

Requisite Conditions for Applying Non-Explanation Principle

Revisiting the precedents in Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P., Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Kashiram v. State of M.P., the High Court reiterated that while minor or superficial injuries may not demolish an otherwise cogent case, the non-explanation of serious injuries caused during the occurrence is fatal to the prosecution. The bench observed that the medical records and defence witnesses established that accused No. 3 had suffered a fracture, which was a grievous injury.

The court observed that where injuries on the accused remain unexplained, it indicates a free fight or prior aggression, making it impossible to ascertain which party initiated the first blow and rendering it perilous to convict the accused as aggressors.

Flawed Investigation of Case and Counter-Case

The Division Bench highlighted the flagrant procedural infraction committed by the investigating agency in having the cross-cases investigated by different Investigating Officers. The bench observed that the counter-complaint lodged by accused No. 3 in Crime No. 150/2012 arose directly out of the very same incident and thus demanded consolidated handling.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa, the court observed that investigation of cross-cases by separate officers severely impairs the fairness of the trial, as the primary objective of a unified investigation is to determine which party was the real aggressor.

"The very purpose of requiring the same Investigating Officer to investigate both versions is to enable an impartial assessment of the rival versions and to ascertain which party was the aggressor."

Vicarious Liability Under Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Inferred Mechanically

Addressing the conviction recorded under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC, the High Court held that the Trial Court committed a serious error of law in presuming that all eleven accused shared a common object merely because grievous injuries were found on the victim. The court pointed out that the occurrence took place right outside the house of the accused, and not at the complainant's premises, negating the premise of pre-meditated aggression.

The bench held that Section 149 IPC cannot be fastened on individuals merely due to their presence at or near their own dwelling when an altercation breaks out, especially when specific individual overt acts are not convincingly established by independent evidence.

Rejection of Victim's Appeal for Conviction Under Section 307 IPC

Dismissing the victim's appeal for conviction under Section 307 IPC, the High Court held that the principles enunciated in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana require the court to deduce intention from the totality of circumstances, force used, and weapons deployed. Given that the prosecution version itself was shrouded in reasonable doubt, neither an enhancement of charges nor an enhancement of compensation under Section 357(1) CrPC could be entertained.

The High Court concluded that the defence had successfully cast a pervasive doubt on the prosecution narrative, emphasizing that the accused are not required to prove their defence beyond reasonable doubt to secure an acquittal.

The High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the accused persons, quashing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, and 326 read with Section 149 IPC, and dismissed the victim's appeal. The ruling reaffirms the seminal criminal jurisprudence rule that non-explanation of contemporaneous injuries on the accused by interested witnesses strikes at the root of the prosecution's genesis of the crime.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2026