Acquittal must stand where medical evidence fails to link the fatal injury to the accused.

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the acquittal of Pratiksha Rai and Aita Raj Rai, who had been tried under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly assaulting Dhan Kumar Rai with firewood, resulting in his death.

The prosecution case was that, on 17 January 2020, Pratiksha Rai quarrelled with her husband and assaulted him, allegedly joined by Aita Raj Rai; the deceased was subsequently taken to hospital and died on 19 January 2020.

The informant, the deceased’s brother, was not an eyewitness.

PW-9 witnessed Pratiksha Rai assaulting the deceased on his knees with firewood, but did not witness any assault causing a head injury.

The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia resulting from massive intracranial haemorrhage, with a scalp haematoma and temporal-bone fracture; however, the autopsy doctor stated that the injuries could also have resulted from a fall or accident.

The doctors who initially examined the deceased at Namchi District Hospital and STNM Hospital were not examined by the prosecution.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding that there were no eyewitnesses to the fatal incident and that the prosecution had not conclusively connected the accused with the death.

1. Whether the medical evidence established that the fatal head injury was caused by an act attributable to the accused persons.

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused and excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with their innocence.

3. Whether the assault witnessed by PW-9 formed part of the same transaction as the fatal injury and could support conviction for the charged offence, or alternatively for a cognate offence.

4. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal disclosed sufficient grounds for appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC concerning murder committed with common intention, and Section 378(1)(b) CrPC governing an appeal against acquittal.

The prosecution bears the primary burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt a clear nexus between the accused’s acts and the fatal injury; the accused’s presence in the house or proximity to the deceased cannot by itself discharge that burden.

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, form a complete chain, be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, and reiterated in Mujeeb v. State of Kerala, 2000 (10) SCC 315.

Relying also on Abdul Nazar v. State of Kerala, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 39512, the Court held that the cause of death must be sufficiently certain before circumstantial evidence can support a finding of guilt.

An uncharged assault could not independently result in conviction in the present proceedings; consideration of a cognate offence such as Section 323 IPC would arise only if its connection with the charged transaction and death were established.

The Court accepted that the deceased died from massive intracranial haemorrhage, but found that the prosecution failed to prove when or how the fatal head injury was sustained or that it resulted from an assault by either accused.

No witness observed a head injury when the deceased was taken to hospital, the driver and nephew did not describe such an injury, and the initial treating doctors were not examined.

The autopsy doctor’s evidence that the injuries could have resulted from a fall, including a fall from the bed, particularly given the deceased’s intoxicated condition, left open a reasonable alternative hypothesis.

Although PW-9 witnessed Pratiksha Rai assaulting the deceased on the knees, the prosecution did not establish that this assault caused or contributed to the fatal head injury or formed part of the same transaction.

Consequently, the circumstantial chain was incomplete and did not satisfy the standard required for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Trial Court’s view was therefore found to be a reasonable view of the evidence, warranting appellate restraint in an appeal against acquittal.

The assault witnessed by PW-9 was not sufficiently connected with the fatal injury and could not support conviction in the absence of a separate charge.

The acquittal was affirmed, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court records were directed to be remitted forthwith.