Must an accused who sustained injuries on the day of the occurrence explain them under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Paragraph 15All the material objects which were seized pursuant to the confession statement of accused, also contained Sulphuric Acid which also got tallied with the earth collected from the place of occurrence which also contains Sulphuric acid. All other material objects seized from the accused including the white gauze cotton piece which was used for taking sample from the bike where the acid was found also detected with Sulphuric acid as per the forensic science examination. Similarly, the helmet seized from the accused also was detected with Sulphuric acid. It is relevant to note that A-2 surrendered before the VAO (P.W.8) and P.W.8, in his evidence, has clearly stated that A-2 appeared before him on 22.06.2009 and gave confession. His extra judicial confession was also filed along with the special report, Ex.P.7, wherein he has also clearly narrated the occurrence. Later A-2 also handed over to the police station. The Inspector of Police arrested A-2 and recorded his confession statement separately under Ex.P.16 and jeans pant was seized from A-2. On forensic examination with other material objects, it is found that it also contains Sulphuric acid. Further, the dresses recovered from the dead body of the deceased also contains Sulphuric acid. The postmortem doctor's evidence also clearly shows that the deceased died due to Sulphuric acid poisoning and its complications. The accused also suffered injuries on the same day which has been clearly spoken to by P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14, medical officers. It is not the case of the accused that they never suffered any such injury, but different statements have been given to the effect that the acid fell on them from the Acid tanker lorry and that some one has thrown acid on the accused. Therefore, when the accused themselves have not disputed the nature of the injuries suffered at the relevant point of time and Sulphuric acid detected from the material objects seized from them, it is for the accused to explain as to how they sustained injuries. These are all facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. In the absence of any explanation, it also points out the complicity of the accused to the crime. That apart, the intention of the accused to kill the deceased can be gathered from the evidence of P.W.32 from whom the accused no.1 has procured the acid by saying that he needs acid for cleaning the toilet. Further, the fact that the accused persons were waiting for the deceased is clear from the evidence of P.W.6, who has stated in his evidence that he has seen both the accused sitting in front of the Palanisamy tea shop and after the deceased leaving the medical shop, both the accused also left the place in the bike and within a couple of minutes, he heard the sound and saw the deceased with acid injuries. Therefore, all these facts are within the knowledge of the accused which he has to explain.

Paragraph 18Therefore, it is clearly evident from the postmortem doctor’s evidence and the doctors who examined the accused persons that Sulphuric acid was present on the body of the deceased and also in the injuries sustained by the accused persons. Further, the material objects collected from the place of occurrence and dresses recovered from the deceased and accused persons also contains Sulphuric acid. That apart, the medical evidence and the scientific evidence also clearly indicate the presence of Sulphuric Acid on the dead body of the deceased and the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the accused persons. Therefore, the scientific evidence clearly points out the guilt of the accused persons.