Acquittal Mandated Where Material Witnesses Turn Hostile and Forensic Evidence Fails to Corroborate Recovery

The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his son, Rajesh.

The prosecution alleged that on June 5, 2006, the deceased, in an intoxicated state, attempted to assault his sister-in-law (PW-4) and attacked the appellant when he intervened.

In a fit of anger, the appellant allegedly struck the deceased with a wooden washing paddle (mogariya), causing fatal head injuries.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the trial, all material witnesses—including the deceased’s brothers (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) and the alleged eye-witness (PW-4)—turned hostile, stating instead that the deceased died after accidentally slipping and striking his head against a doorframe.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in light of all material witnesses turning hostile

2. Whether the recovery of the weapon (mogariya) holds evidentiary value in the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report

3. Whether the burden of proof shifts to the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act for an incident occurring within a shared household

The court primarily applied Section 304 Part-I of the IPC regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 7 SCC 78, which establishes that the non-production of an FSL report by the prosecution renders the seizure of incriminating articles doubtful and unreliable.

Furthermore, it applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the burden of explanation does not shift to the accused when multiple persons reside in the same premises, as the "exclusive possession" of the scene is not established.

The court found that the prosecution's case rested on shaky ground because every material witness, including the purported eye-witness (PW-4), discredited the police's version of events.

The witnesses consistently testified that the injuries were the result of an accidental fall while the deceased was intoxicated.

Regarding the physical evidence, the court observed that while a wooden paddle was seized, the failure to produce an FSL report confirming the presence of human blood rendered the recovery "inconsequential".

The court further reasoned that Section 106 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable; since the house was occupied by several family members, the appellant did not have exclusive knowledge of the incident that would require him to prove his innocence.

Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts necessary to sustain a conviction.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated July 31, 2007, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.

The appellant was directed to be released from his bail bonds following the procedures under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.