Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to link the accused’s blows to death or establish common intention.

The appellant, informant and father of the deceased, challenged the judgment dated 15 December 2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, acquitting respondent no. 2, Mir Hussain, of offences under Sections 302 and 341 IPC in Sessions Case No. 111/2017.

The prosecution case was that on 18 August 2013, the deceased, Jiyarul Haque, was stopped by four persons, including respondent no. 2, and assaulted with a wooden batten and lathi.

He was taken first to Barpeta Medical College and thereafter referred to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, where he died on 19 August 2013.

The juvenile accused, Sanidul Islam, was alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a lathi on the head and was proceeded against before the Juvenile Justice Board.

The appellant relied principally on the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 5, alleging that respondent no. 2 had inflicted fist blows and slaps on the deceased.

The post-mortem evidence, however, attributed death to coma resulting from ante-mortem blunt-force injuries to the head, including a depressed skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage.

1. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that respondent no. 2 caused the injuries resulting in the deceased’s death, thereby attracting liability under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the evidence proved respondent no. 2’s participation in wrongful restraint punishable under Section 341 IPC?

3. Whether respondent no. 2 could be held vicariously liable under Section 34 IPC on the basis of a common intention with the juvenile assailant?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death with the requisite culpable mental state; Section 341 IPC concerning wrongful restraint; and Section 34 IPC, which permits joint liability only where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The Court also considered the prosecution’s burden to establish the accused’s participation and causal connection with the fatal injuries through credible and trustworthy evidence.

Medical evidence is relevant to determine the nature and cause of death and to test whether the acts attributed to the accused could have caused the fatal injuries.

The Court further noted that respondent no. 2 could not be convicted on a common-intention theory when no charge under Section 34 IPC had been framed against him.

The Court found that PWs 1 and 4 were not reliable eyewitnesses to the alleged fist blows, as their evidence indicated that they arrived after hearing about the assault and saw the accused preparing to take the deceased to hospital.

PW-5 merely stated that he heard that respondent no. 2 had slapped the deceased, and his evidence did not establish that the slaps caused the death.

The medical evidence showed that death resulted from head injuries, including a depressed skull fracture and extradural haemorrhage, caused by blunt-force impact; it did not connect the fatal injuries with the alleged slaps or fist blows attributed to respondent no. 2.

The evidence instead indicated that the juvenile accused had struck the deceased on the head with a lathi.

Accordingly, the prosecution failed to establish that respondent no. 2 caused the death or shared a common intention to kill, particularly when no Section 34 charge had been framed.

The evidence also did not warrant interference with the trial court’s finding of benefit of doubt.

It further held that liability under Section 34 IPC could not be invoked in the absence of a charge under that provision and in the absence of proof of common intention.

The appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed, the trial court record was directed to be returned, and the Amicus Curiae was directed to be paid fees by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee as per norms.