Non-examination of Investigating Officer and Doctor Vitiates Conviction if Material Contradictions Prejudice the Accused

The four appellants were convicted by the Trial Court on 13-10-2004 under Sections 307/34 (attempt to murder) and 450 (house-trespass) of the IPC and sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on 12.03.1994, following an altercation between the informant (PW-2) and the daughter of appellant No. 1 at a river, the appellants entered the informant’s courtyard with weapons (garasa, farsa, and lathis)

Appellant No. 1 allegedly struck PW-2 on the head with a garasa, rendering her unconscious

During the trial, four out of six prosecution witnesses turned hostile

Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer (I.O.) or the medical doctor, and no documentary evidence (FIR or Injury Report) was marked as an exhibit

1. Whether the trial court was correct in convicting the appellants under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 450 of the IPC despite the absence of medical and documentary evidence?

2. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the doctor caused material prejudice to the defense?

3. Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted in accordance with the law?

The court applied Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), Section 450 (House-trespass), and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC

Procedurally, it relied on Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the mandatory duty of the court to enable the accused to explain incriminating circumstances

It applied the principle from Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh that while investigative lapses alone aren't grounds for acquittal, they impact the reliability of the truth-finding process

It further relied on Bahadur Nayak v. State of Bihar and S.K. Rashid v. State of Bihar, holding that non-examination of the I.O. is fatal if it causes prejudice or if there are material contradictions

Lastly, it cited Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding the necessity of putting specific incriminating evidence to the accused during Section 313 examination

The High Court found the prosecution’s case riddled with contradictions. The testimony of the informant (PW-2) and her mother (PW-1) conflicted regarding where the statement was recorded (hospital vs. police station) and when PW-2 regained consciousness

The court noted that since no injury report was marked and no doctor was examined, the charge under Section 307 could not be sustained

Similarly, the failure to examine the I.O. meant the place of occurrence was not legally established, vitiating the charge under Section 450

The Court highlighted a severe procedural lapse under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where the Trial Judge put vague, general questions to all four appellants instead of specific incriminating acts, thereby failing to establish a "direct dialogue" or provide a fair opportunity for defense

The absence of the FIR and fardbeyan as marked exhibits was deemed a "serious prejudice"

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-10-2004, acquitted all four appellants, and discharged their bail bonds