Conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot stand where prosecution evidence is unreliable and injury documentation is doubtful.

The appellant was prosecuted in Sonua P.S. Case No. 13 of 2017 for allegedly striking the informant-victim, Khirod Tanti, on the head with a “Dab” on 15 March 2017, allegedly with an intention to kill him.

The prosecution attributed the occurrence to prior disputes concerning a Chowkidar’s employment and property.

The victim was initially taken to Sonua Hospital and was thereafter referred to hospitals at Chaibasa and Jamshedpur.

The police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, while charges were framed under Sections 341, 323 and 307 IPC.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, including the injured witness, the alleged eyewitness, the doctor and the Investigating Officer.

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficiently reliable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an act constituting an offence under Section 307 IPC.

Whether the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances supported the prosecution version, particularly in view of the alleged contradictions regarding the victim’s movement, the doubtful injury report, and the admitted disputes between the parties.

The Court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires proof of an act done with the intention or knowledge that, if death were caused, the act would amount to murder.

The conviction had to be sustained on reliable and sufficient prosecution evidence establishing the accused’s identity, the occurrence, the injury, and the requisite intention beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also applied the general criminal-law principle that material contradictions, doubtful medical evidence, interested testimony and failure to produce relevant corroborative medical records may create reasonable doubt warranting acquittal or reversal of conviction.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court found the prosecution case unsafe for sustaining a conviction under Section 307 IPC.

The victim admitted that he was a direct beneficiary if the appellant was imprisoned and that disputes existed regarding the Chowkidar’s employment; the alleged eyewitness, the victim’s wife, also admitted property-related hostility and the parties’ interest in the outcome.

The evidence regarding how the victim reached the police station was inconsistent: the Investigating Officer stated that the victim came himself, whereas other witnesses stated that he was taken there by Ravi.

The injury report contained interpolation, lacked the hospital seal, and disclosed the age of the injury without an explained basis.

Although the police took the victim to a primary health centre, the prosecution did not produce medical treatment records from MGM Hospital, Jamshedpur, where the victim was allegedly referred for better treatment.

In light of these infirmities, the Court held that the evidence was neither reliable nor sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

It consequently quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 19 September 2018 and the order of sentence dated 25 September 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.

The appeal was allowed; as the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liability of his bail bond, and the trial court records were directed to be returned.