Contradictions Between Eye-witness Testimony and Medical Evidence Regarding Manner of Occurrence Entitle Accused to Acquittal

On March 15, 2013, the informant (Harembo Behra) alleged that the appellant and two others (one deceased, one juvenile) entered his house armed with lathi-dandas, thrashed him indiscriminately, and injured his wife and daughters

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the injured family members and the medical officer

The defense contended the case was a counter-blast to Noamundi P.S. Case No. 09/2013 previously filed by the appellant’s side against the informant

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 448/34, and 504/34 of the IPC, sentencing him to various terms of simple imprisonment up to six months

1. Whether the prosecution proved the manner of commission of the crime and the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence

2. Whether the conviction is sustainable in light of the failure to examine independent witnesses and the non-seizure of incriminating materials

The Court applied the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence requiring the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Key statutory provisions involved were Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 448 (house-trespass), and 504 (intentional insult) of the Indian Penal Code

The court scrutinized the consistency required between the medical report (P.W. 5) and oral testimony to establish the "manner of commission"

The Court found several irreconcilable contradictions in the prosecution's case. While witnesses claimed they were beaten into unconsciousness and remained hospitalized for ten days, the medical evidence (P.W. 5) categorized the injuries as simple, potentially caused by a fall on a rough surface, and provided no age of injury to correlate with the incident date

Furthermore, while oral testimonies asserted that blood-stained soil and weapons (dandas) were seized, the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) categorically denied making any such seizures

The Court noted that despite the occurrence taking place in a residential area, no independent witnesses were examined

Given that the case was a counter-blast to an earlier FIR filed by the appellant's brother, these gaps rendered the prosecution’s version unreliable

The Court allowed the appeal, quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 23, 2019. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and discharged from his bail bonds