Biased, one-sided investigation suppressing injuries sustained by the accused and material contradictions warrant an acquittal.

The case originated from a dispute on August 27, 2001, at approximately 07:00 AM regarding the tethering of buffaloes in a public park in Rohini

A Police Control Room (PCR) vehicle found three injured persons—Ram Dass (victim side), Jai Prakash, and Pradeep (appellant side)—and transported them to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital

Based on a statement by PW-1 (Ram Gopal), an FIR was registered at 04:30 PM under Sections 341/323/34 of the IPC, which was later escalated to include Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) based on medical opinions

The Appellants were arrested on August 30, 2001

Following a trial involving eight witnesses, the Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court on January 28, 2004, and sentenced to one year of Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 308/34 IPC and a fine for Section 341 IPC

The Appellants challenged the conviction, alleging a biased investigation and material contradictions in witness testimonies

1. Whether the contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the weapons used and the presence of parties at the spot render the prosecution's case unreliable

2. Whether the delay in registering the FIR and the Investigative Officer's failure to account for his movements during the investigation timeline suggest a manipulated or mala fide prosecution

3. Whether the suppression of medical evidence regarding injuries sustained by the Appellants and the failure to file cross-cases indicates a biased and one-sided investigation

The Court primarily applied Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide), Section 341 (Wrongful restraint), and Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code

Regarding the appreciation of ocular evidence, the Court relied on the principles established in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 13 SCC 365, which holds that while minor variations do not necessarily discredit a witness, contradictions that go to the root of the case or create grave suspicion must result in the rejection of such evidence

The Court also emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the protection of the innocent is of utmost importance and that a fair investigation must provide a level playing field to both sides

The Court observed that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were fraught with material inconsistencies regarding the weapons used (brick vs. iron rod) and the sequence of events

Specifically, PW-1’s conduct was deemed unnatural, as he claimed to be present during the assault on his father but remained a "mute spectator" without sustaining any injuries

The Court found the role of the Investigating Officer (IO), PW-7, highly questionable; the IO admitted in cross-examination that he was aware of injuries to Appellants Jai Prakash and Pradeep from the outset but deliberately omitted their Medical Legal Reports (MLCs) from the record

Furthermore, the IO failed to explain a significant gap in the timeline where he left the hospital to attend court before the FIR was registered

The Court noted that the IO’s failure to record the Appellants' version or file a cross-case, despite evidence that the "victims" may have been the aggressors, pointed to a "motivated, biased, and one-sided" investigation

The Court held that the Appellants were punished "improperly" due to a failure of governance and lack of supervisory control over the investigation

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence dated January 28, 2004, and allowed the appeal, thereby acquitting the Appellants