Conviction for murder cannot be sustained where medical evidence fails to establish injuries as cause of death.

The informant, Siyawati Devi, alleged that on February 20, 1998, her husband, Anirudh Singh, was called to the appellants' house to attend a Panchayat regarding a stolen watch.

The appellants allegedly assaulted him, causing him to become unconscious. He was later brought back to his house by the accused and left in his drawing room, where he complained of the assault before dying that night.

The prosecution examined 10 witnesses.

The trial court convicted the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The appellants challenged this, citing a lack of eyewitnesses and medical evidence.

1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error of law calling for interference?

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants were the cause of the deceased's death?

Section 302 (Murder) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the cause of death and the nexus between the accused’s acts and the resulting death beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ocular testimony must be corroborated by medical evidence, and where medical evidence (post-mortem report/doctor’s testimony) contradicts the prosecution's theory of fatal assault, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.

The court found no eyewitnesses to the alleged assault.

While the deceased’s wife (P.W.-8) testified that her husband claimed he was assaulted, the medical evidence was contradictory. The doctor (P.W.-9) who conducted the autopsy found only two simple bruises on the back, which he testified were not sufficient to cause death and could have resulted from a fall.

No internal injuries were found, and the viscera report was never produced in court.

The court noted contradictions between the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-8 regarding their presence during the events.

Given that the medical opinion failed to establish a definite cause of death and labeled the injuries as simple, the court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants caused the death.

The court answered the primary issue in the affirmative, finding that the trial court committed a serious error of law.

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2003 and 31.01.2003 were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were discharged from their bail bonds.