CUSTODIAL DEATH ACQUITTAL UPHELD DUE TO LACK OF MEDICAL NEXUS AND HOSTILE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

In brief

The question

1. Whether the prosecution established a direct nexus between the injuries found on the deceased and the alleged assault by the accused police personnel.

The court held

The High Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It also directed

The court affirmed that as long as the trial court's view is a possible one, the appellate court must not substitute it with its own.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, was confirmed.

01Facts

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 12.08.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in a case involving the alleged custodial death of Jethabhai.

pp. 1-2

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 10.05.1991, the respondents (police personnel) apprehended Jethabhai near Taleti Road, publicly assaulted him with sticks, and continued the assault inside the Palitana police station, resulting in his death.

p. 2

The defense contended the deceased was a habitual drinker with health issues.

p. 13, 17

The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Sections 302, 34, and 114 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the prosecution established a direct nexus between the injuries found on the deceased and the alleged assault by the accused police personnel.

p. 11

ii.2. Whether the medical evidence supported the claim that death was caused by custodial violence.

pp. 9-10

iii.3. Whether the High Court should interfere with a trial court’s order of acquittal when a reasonable alternative view of the evidence exists.

p. 23, 27

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Sections 34/114 (Common intention/Abetment) of the Indian Penal Code.

p. 1

Procedurally, it followed Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal.

p. 2

The court relied on the "Double Presumption of Innocence" principle, noting that an acquittal reinforces the initial presumption of innocence.

p. 27

It cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, establishing that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.

pp. 25-27

It cited Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that interference is only warranted if the trial court's findings are "perverse" or "manifestly erroneous".

p. 23

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 114 Section 302

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 379

04Reasoning

Medical testimony from PW-1 indicated that the thirteen external injuries were "simple in nature" and not sufficient to cause death, with X-rays showing no fractures.

pp. 9-10

PW-1 further noted that the deceased might have died of neurogenic shock possibly linked to a drop in blood sugar levels due to alcohol habituation and lack of food, rather than physical trauma.

pp. 10-11

Crucially, the estimated time of injury (per PW-1) predated the time the deceased was taken into police custody.

p. 11, 21

Furthermore, key eyewitnesses (PW-6, PW-11, and PW-12) turned hostile, denying they saw any assault.

p. 15, 19, 20

PW-3 (Medical Officer) testified that the deceased sat and walked on his own and made no complaints of assault when brought for a blood test at 1:00 AM.

pp. 12-13

The court reasoned that since the trial court's view was plausible and supported by the lack of direct or consistent medical evidence, there was no "patent perversity" to justify reversing the acquittal.

p. 28