Failure to Explain Injuries to Accused and Material Contradictions in Related Witness Testimonies Vitiate Case for Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on July 19, 2002, the respondent-accused stabbed Nasib Chand in the back with a Kirch (sharp-edged weapon) due to long-standing enmity.

The deceased died enroute to the hospital.

The police filed a charge sheet against the respondent under Sections 302 and 341 of the RPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on August 7, 2012, citing contradictions in eyewitness testimony, non-recovery of the weapon, and failure to explain injuries on the accused.

The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in discarding the testimonies of related eyewitnesses due to material contradictions and improvements.

2. Whether the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused and the lack of independent witnesses proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the FIR was ante-dated, thereby tainting the entire investigation.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and 341 (Wrongful Restraint) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

It relied on the principle from Talari Naresh v. The State of Telangana (2023), which holds that the testimony of a hostile witness can be utilized for the purpose of acquitting an accused if it inspires credibility.

Regarding the non-explanation of injuries on the accused, the Court applied the doctrine from Nand Lal and Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2023), which posits that such failure suggests the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence.

The Court upheld the cardinal principle that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted.

The Court found that while the prosecution relied on the deceased's family (PW-1, 2, 3, and 7), their testimonies were mutually contradictory regarding their presence at the scene; PW-2 negated the presence of PW-1 and PW-7 entirely.

The court noted that although 40-50 villagers were reportedly present, no independent witness supported the prosecution, and the sole independent witness (PW-8) turned hostile, stating she saw neither the witnesses nor the accused at the spot.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to explain recorded injuries on the accused’s neck, a fact the witnesses tried to explain away with an uncorroborated "self-stabbing" theory not found in their original statements.

Furthermore, the discrepancy between the informant's testimony (stating the report was lodged the next morning) and the FIR record (showing it was lodged 80 minutes after the crime) led the court to conclude the FIR was ante-dated and the investigation was tainted.

The Court affirmed that the prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the crime by failing to explain the accused's injuries and providing a tainted, ante-dated FIR.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal.