The Allahabad High Court has observed that no adverse inference could be drawn against an accused for failing to explain a circumstance or piece of evidence on which he was not questioned by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while allowing 2 connected criminal appeals and acquitting 3 accused who had been convicted under Section 307 IPC in a 2006 attempt-to-murder case.

Facts in brief

It was the prosecution's case that appellants-accused Aarif Ali @ Aarif, Mohd Kamil @ Guddu and Abdul Rauf had fired at complainant Subarati with country-made pistols on June 9, 2006, causing pellet injuries to his face, neck and chest.

The trial court had convicted all 3 accused under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 each. Challenging their conviction, they moved the High Court

One of the circumstances considered by the High Court was that Aarif himself had suffered 4 injuries during the incident.

The investigating officer stated that Aarif had been medically examined at District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri. His medical examination recorded 2 scalp-deep lacerated wounds, a deep red-bluish contusion on the back and traumatic swelling on the hand.

The injuries were about a day old and could have been caused by a stick. However, during the trial, the prosecution did not explain how Aarif sustained these injuries.

Despite this, the trial court rejected the testimony of a doctor regarding Aarif's injuries. The Court noted that no FIR had been lodged from the accused's side and that the accused had not stated anything about the injuries in their statements under Section 313 CrPC.

High Court's observations

The High Court found trial court's reasoning contrary to the law governing Section 313 CrPC. Justice Vidyarthi observed thus:

"The trial Court has acted in ignorance of the position of law that it is the duty of the Court to put questions to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused is not required to give a narration of the story. In case no question was put to the accused on any aspect of the matter, no adverse inference can be drawn against him".

Thus, it was the High Court's conclusion that the fact that the appellant, Aarif, had not himself referred to his injuries in his Section 313 statement could not be used against him unless the relevant circumstance had first been put to him by the Court for his explanation.

The High Court separately considered the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries sustained by appellant-Aarif. Although PW-1 denied that the appellant had been beaten by members of the complainant's family, the investigating officer confirmed that Aarif had suffered 4 injuries during the incident.

Taking note of the same, the Court observed thus:

"Absence of any explanation regarding the injuries of Aarif also gives rise to a reasonable doubt that the prosecution witnesses have not disclosed the complete truth and it fortifies the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that persons from the complainant's side were the assailants".

The Court further noted that the complainant had claimed to have become unconscious after receiving the firearm injury. It therefore found it doubtful that Aarif could have been assaulted with lathis after the complainant had fainted.

Apart from the Section 313 CrPC lacuna, the Court found other discrepancies too in the prosecution case including the genesis of the occurrence.

The FIR attributed the quarrel to a dispute between the complainant's children and Rauf's, but the complainant later admitted that Rauf had no children.

The investigating officer, meanwhile, gave another version that the dispute arose after Rauf's buffalo allegedly damaged the complainant's tatiya. The complainant's brother, however, stated that the appellants did not have cattle.

The Court also found inconsistencies regarding the place and manner of firing. The site plan showed the appellants allegedly firing from inside a room, with the complainant 22 steps away.

Yet the relevant wall had no door or window, while the house was surrounded by 10-foot-high boundary walls. The Court observed that it appeared 'impossible' for all 3 appellants to have fired at the complainant from inside the room in the manner alleged.

The complainant had also claimed that he bled profusely and that his clothes became bloodstained. However, the medical evidence did not mention bleeding, the investigating officer found no blood at the spot and no bloodstained clothes were produced before the police.

The Court further noted that the medical report recorded blackening around the injury, while the evidence indicated that such blackening was associated with close-range firing.

This, the Court said, was difficult to reconcile with the prosecution's allegation that the shots were fired from approximately 55-60 feet away.

Against this backdrop, the Court ultimately observed thus:

"A cumulative reading of the evidence on record reveals that the prosecution's version suffers from several material infirmities which cast a reasonable doubt on the very genesis and manner of the alleged occurrence".

It accordingly held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants. Hence, it set aside the conviction and acquitted all three accused under Section 307 IPC.

The Court also declined to decide Mohd Kamil's plea that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, observing that, following his acquittal, the issue had become academic unless the State challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

Case title - Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment