Jharkhand HC Acquits 3 Men In Wedding-Scuffle Death, Finding No Reliable Evidence Linking Them To The Fatal Head Injury

During a wedding gathering on 6 May 1990, an altercation reportedly arose between the bride’s and groom’s parties following an earlier dispute over a chocolate being thrown towards women.

The prosecution alleged that members of the bride’s party assaulted Bhuneshwar Pandey and his son, Raj Kishore Pandey, who had intervened to protect his father; Raj Kishore later died in hospital.

The Sessions Court convicted the surviving appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Two appellants died during the appeal, which proceeded on behalf of the three surviving appellants.

The Court considered Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, under which criminal liability for culpable homicide not amounting to murder may attach to participants acting with a shared common intention, and Section 141 IPC, which defines an unlawful assembly by reference to its common object.

The prosecution was required to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence did not reliably establish their participation or the requisite shared intention, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.

No precedent was cited.

The post-mortem established a fatal extradural haematoma on the deceased’s left parietal region, while the earlier examination recorded swelling on the right side of the scalp; neither medical finding identified who caused the fatal injury.

The Court found the allegations against the surviving appellants general and omnibus, with no reliable specific overt act connecting them to the fatal injury.

The post-mortem disclosed no chest injury corresponding to the alleged act of pressing the deceased’s chest, and the principal allegation concerning a stick blow was attributed to a co-accused who had died during the appeal.

Given these evidentiary weaknesses, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer in light of the defence challenge to contradictions, and the failure to establish common intention or an unlawful assembly, the Court found reasonable doubt as to the appellants’ involvement.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and discharged the appellants from their bail bonds and the sureties from their obligations.