Defective inquest and delayed production do not invalidate conviction supported by reliable eyewitness and medical evidence.

On 22 May 2014, the appellant was allegedly seen by neighbours assaulting his wife, Asha Mondal, while intoxicated.

Neighbours intervened, but the appellant abused them and told them not to interfere.

He subsequently took the injured victim to Habra State General Hospital, where she was declared dead.

The appellant returned home and, when questioned about his wife, stated that she had died and allegedly attempted to flee with their infant child.

A formal FIR was registered under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC, naming the appellant as the sole accused.

At trial, neighbours PWs 1–4 and PW-6 testified regarding the appellant’s repeated assaults and the assault on the date of occurrence.

The postmortem doctor found multiple lacerated wounds, abrasions, bruises, a skull fracture and subdural haematoma, opining that the injuries were caused by a blunt hard object and resulted in death.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment under Section 498A and life imprisonment under Section 302.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the prosecution case on grounds including delayed production before the Magistrate, alleged irregularities in the inquest proceedings, non-recovery of the weapon, non-examination of the doctor who recorded a history of “fall,” and alleged enmity between witnesses and the appellant’s family.

Whether the evidence of the neighbouring eyewitnesses, read with the postmortem evidence, was sufficient to establish that the appellant intentionally assaulted his wife and caused her death, thereby sustaining his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Whether the alleged irregularities in the arrest and production of the appellant before the Magistrate, and the inconsistencies concerning the first and second inquest reports, vitiated the prosecution case and required acquittal.

Whether the non-examination of Dr. Samir Mondal, who recorded a history of fall, and the non-recovery of the weapon of assault created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt.

Whether the alleged property dispute or prior enmity involving the prosecution witnesses rendered their testimony unreliable.

The court applied Section 302 of the IPC, which criminalises murder, and Section 498A of the IPC, which penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.

It relied on the principle that clear, consistent and credible ocular evidence, corroborated by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction even in the absence of recovery of the weapon of offence.

The court held that a medical history recorded from a patient or accompanying person is not conclusive proof of the manner in which injuries were caused.

It further held that defects or irregularities in inquest proceedings, arrest procedure or production before a Magistrate do not automatically invalidate an otherwise reliable prosecution case unless they cause demonstrable prejudice or undermine the substantive evidence.

The decision in Mohd. Zahid v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (1998) 5 SCC 419, was distinguished because that case turned principally on contradictions concerning the recovery of weapons, whereas the present case rested on direct eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence.

The court found the testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 4 to be clear and substantially consistent regarding the appellant’s assault on the victim, his prior conduct of repeatedly assaulting her, and his abusive response when neighbours intervened.

PWs 3 and 4 were treated as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and their evidence was corroborated by the postmortem findings of extensive blunt-force injuries, including a skull fracture and subdural haematoma sufficient to cause death.

The court rejected the defence theory that the victim’s injuries resulted from an accidental fall, observing that the injuries were inconsistent with such an explanation and that the hospital record merely reproduced the history supplied to the doctor.

The absence of the weapon and the non-examination of Dr. Samir Mondal were held non-fatal because the direct evidence and postmortem evidence independently established the assault and causation of death.

Even assuming irregularities or fabrication concerning the inquest reports and accepting lapses in arrest or production, the court held that those matters did not displace the credible substantive evidence against the appellant.

Alleged hostility arising from a property dispute was also held insufficient to undermine the prosecution evidence.

The appeal, C.R.A. 364 of 2016, was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were affirmed.

Any connected pending application was also dismissed, and the lower court records were directed to be returned to the trial court.