Credible ocular evidence sustains murder conviction despite non-examination of weapons and blood-stained earth.

The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions Case No. 24/2025 arising from an incident on 26 May 2013 concerning a land dispute and the proposed construction of a community hall/Rangamancha.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants demolished the foundation pillars and, when the deceased Bolu Bangthai and others objected, assaulted him with a dao, axe and spade, causing his death; PW-2 Katiram Bangthai was also injured while attempting to intervene.

The medical evidence attributed the death to cardio-respiratory failure following haemopneumothorax and head injuries caused by sharp and heavy weapons.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 143 IPC, and appellants Nos. 3 and 4 additionally under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder; appellants Nos. 2 and 5 received 30 days’ simple imprisonment under Section 143 IPC.

Appellant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal, while appellants Nos.2 and 5 had completed their sentences.

The surviving appellants challenged the conviction principally on the grounds of private defence, inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, non-explanation of injuries on the accused, and failure to send the weapons and blood-stained earth for forensic examination.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured witness and eyewitnesses, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the death of Bolu Bangthai and injured PW-2.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the right of private defence of their person or property in view of their claim that they possessed the disputed land and had acted to prevent unlawful interference.

3. Whether the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries allegedly found on the appellants undermined the prosecution case.

4. Whether the failure to send the seized weapons and blood-stained earth for forensic examination, and the failure to specifically show the weapons to the medical witness, rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

5. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC ought to be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC on the ground of a sudden fight or occurrence in the heat of passion.

The Court applied Sections 143, 302 and 324 IPC, along with the principles governing unlawful assembly, murder and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

It relied on the rule that testimony of an injured eyewitness carries special evidentiary weight because the injury independently establishes the witness’s presence, unless displaced by material contradictions.

Under Sections 96–106 IPC, the right of private defence is available where a person faces a reasonable and imminent apprehension of unlawful harm, but it is a defensive right and cannot be used for retaliation or revenge; the force used must not be wholly disproportionate to the danger apprehended.

Non-explanation of injuries on an accused may weaken the prosecution where such injuries are serious and the prosecution evidence is doubtful, but the omission is not necessarily fatal where the injuries are minor or the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credible.

Failure to conduct forensic examination of weapons or blood-stained earth is not fatal where reliable ocular evidence independently establishes the occurrence and the identity of the assailants.

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC requires a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, and absence of undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct; the use of multiple sharp weapons and blows on vital body parts may exclude its application.

The Court found the prosecution case supported by the injured testimony of PW-2 and the consistent accounts of PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9, who described the appellants’ demolition of the community-hall pillars and their subsequent assault on the deceased with a dao, axe and spade.

The medical evidence corroborated the account of multiple sharp-force injuries and the resulting death.

Minor discrepancies as to which appellant used which weapon or the precise location where the body was found did not affect the central prosecution narrative.

The plea of private defence failed because the appellants did not establish ownership or lawful possession of the land, nor show that their demolition of the community-hall structures was lawful or that the deceased and PW-2 posed an imminent threat justifying lethal force.

The alleged injuries on appellants Nos.1 and 4 were recorded only upon their production before the Magistrate after two or three days, without any evidence regarding their nature or seriousness; consequently, the principle in Lakshmi Singh was held inapplicable in light of the otherwise credible ocular evidence.

The absence of FSL reports did not outweigh the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses, and the principle in Kartarey concerning identification of a weapon by the medical witness was found factually distinguishable.

Finally, the appellants had arrived armed to demolish the structures and inflicted several blows with sharp weapons during resistance to their conduct; the occurrence was therefore not a spontaneous, unpremeditated fight attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The plea of private defence, the objections concerning unexplained injuries and forensic non-examination, and the request to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC were rejected.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court were affirmed; the Trial Court Records were directed to be returned with a copy of the judgment.