Gauhati HC Acquits 7 Men Of Murdering A Father, Citing Conflicting Accounts And Medical Evidence That Could Fit A Fall

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the death of Matab Ali, allegedly caused by an assault with heavy wooden objects following a land dispute.

The prosecution relied principally on the deceased’s sons, who said they witnessed the assault; other evidence included testimony that the deceased fell, the post-mortem report recording a skull fracture but no external injuries, and defence witnesses’ account of a fall.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment and a fine.

They appealed against the conviction and sentence.

The charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention.

The prosecution had to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence supported two reasonable views, the view favourable to the accused was to be adopted.

Medical evidence and the consistency of witness accounts were relevant to assessing whether the prosecution had discharged that burden.

The Court found that the prosecution’s account of repeated blows with heavy objects was inconsistent with the post-mortem and inquest evidence, which recorded no external injuries, and with PW-3’s account that the deceased fell and lost consciousness.

That account was consistent with the medical officer’s evidence that the skull fracture could have resulted from a fall on a hard surface.

The defence account was therefore reasonably plausible, creating doubt as to whether the appellants caused the death.

As to Abul Hussain, the Court accepted that no witness implicated him by name.

It set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted all appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt, allowed both appeals, and directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith.