Accused gets benefit of doubt if his injuries cannot be explained.

The court case involves serious injuries received by Dasrath Singh which haven’t been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, relying on the evidence of witnesses would be difficult as some have lied about seeing any injuries on the accused. However, there are cases where non-explanation of injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. In the present case, the injuries sustained by accused No. 11 cannot be considered minor, and witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. There was previous enmity between the families due to election of Sarpanch. The prosecution has suppressed the real genesis of the incident and information regarding the previous incident. Thus, accused No. 11 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. For the other accused, the delay in lodging the FIR would cast a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. The suppression of the FIR adds to the doubt.

NAND LAL AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

By aor.sanjivnarang@gmail.com

Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.