Murder conviction cannot stand where death and identity remain unproved amid unreliable evidence.

On 5 January 1992, the prosecution alleged that Nand Kishore Singh, Vidyanand Singh and others had gone to village Talihar to purchase khesari crops from Nageshwar Singh. According to the prosecution, Nagar Singh, Ram Singh and Rabindra Singh arrived armed with firearms, while the remaining accused carried lathis. After an altercation concerning the crops, Ram Singh allegedly fired at Nageshwar Singh, causing his death; Nagar Singh and Rabindra Singh allegedly fired at Vidyanand Singh and Nand Kishore Singh, respectively, while the other accused assaulted the group and allegedly removed the deceased’s body towards the Koshi River.

Beldaur Police Station Case No. 1 of 1992 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted Ram Singh under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Balak Singh, Dilip Singh and Pramod Singh under Section 147 IPC; the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

In appeal, the appellants challenged the reliability of the prosecution evidence, relying particularly on the informant’s hostility, inconsistencies among the eyewitnesses, the absence of the deceased’s body and post-mortem evidence, and the lack of forensic or ballistic corroboration. The prosecution defended the conviction as being supported by consistent ocular evidence and the testimony of injured witnesses.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nageshwar Singh had died homicidally, despite non-recovery of the dead body, absence of post-mortem examination and lack of medical evidence concerning the alleged fatal injury?

Whether the ocular evidence reliably established that Ram Singh fired the fatal shot and that the other appellants participated in the alleged unlawful assembly and assault?

Whether the alleged blood-stained articles, dragging marks and other investigative findings sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case concerning the occurrence and removal of the body?

Whether the prosecution evidence, including the fardbeyan and statements under Section 164 CrPC, could sustain the convictions in light of the informant turning hostile and the non-examination of the Magistrate who recorded the Section 164 statements?

The Court applied Sections 302, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder, rioting and rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, respectively, and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning use of arms in contravention of the statute.

It applied the fundamental criminal-law principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that every reasonable and substantial doubt must operate in favour of the accused.

The Court held that recovery of a dead body is not invariably indispensable for a murder conviction, but, where the body is not recovered, the prosecution must otherwise prove the factum of death and the identity of the deceased through cogent, consistent and reliable evidence.

It further reiterated that a fardbeyan is not substantive evidence and that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein; such statements may be used only for the legally permissible purposes of contradiction or corroboration.

The Court also applied the principle that testimony of an injured witness carries weight but remains subject to scrutiny, particularly where it conflicts materially with medical evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged death of Nageshwar Singh with the requisite certainty because his body was never recovered, no post-mortem examination was conducted, and no medical evidence established the nature or cause of the alleged fatal injury.

The alleged slippers and lungi were neither supported by seizure lists nor identified in court as belonging to the deceased, and the blood found at the spot was not subjected to chemical or forensic examination. The alleged dragging marks were likewise not independently corroborated or shown to have resulted from removal of a dead body.

The ocular evidence was materially inconsistent regarding the individual roles of Ram Singh, Nagar Singh and Rabindra Singh and the sequence of firing.

In particular, the doctor stated that Vidyanand Singh had not suffered a firearm injury, contrary to the prosecution’s attribution of such an injury to Nagar Singh.

The informant, Nand Kishore Singh, turned hostile and denied being an eyewitness and denied the material allegations attributed to him in the fardbeyan.

The Section 164 statements could not cure these deficiencies because they were not substantive evidence, and the Magistrate who allegedly recorded them was not examined.

The Court also considered the admitted land dispute and relationship of agnates as circumstances capable both of furnishing motive and of supporting false implication or exaggeration, thereby requiring stronger corroboration.

Taken cumulatively, these deficiencies created a reasonable and substantial doubt regarding the fact of death, the manner of occurrence and the specific participation of the appellants.

The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside, and Ram Singh, Balak Singh, Dilip Singh and Pramod Singh were acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged; the Registry was directed to return the lower-court record forthwith.