Non-examination of the Investigating Officer causing prejudice warrants acquittal where prosecution evidence remains doubtful.

On 14 November 1995, the informant, Chinta Devi, alleged that the appellants and other accused persons entered her courtyard armed with lathis and a khanti, demanded a compromise in an earlier land dispute, and, upon refusal, assaulted her and her family members and damaged or removed household articles.

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the informant and three injured witnesses, and produced injury reports and other documentary evidence.

The defence did not lead oral evidence but relied on the counter-case, sale deed, injury reports of certain accused, and revenue records.

The trial court convicted Appellant Nos. 2–4 under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed concurrent sentences.

During the appeal, Appellant No. 1, Ram Bilash Thakur, died; consequently, the appeal abated against him and survived against Appellant Nos. 2–4.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Appellant Nos. 2–4 under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the admitted land dispute and prior enmity, the existence of a counter-case, and the absence of independent witnesses created reasonable doubt warranting appellate interference with the conviction.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against Appellant Nos. 2–4 should be sustained.

The Court applied Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning criminal trespass and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively.

The prosecution was required to establish each charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also applied the settled criminal-law principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and that material investigative deficiencies, particularly non-examination of the Investigating Officer where it prejudices the defence, may undermine the prosecution case.

The testimony of interested or related witnesses is not automatically inadmissible, but must be assessed with caution, particularly where prior enmity, a land dispute, a counter-case, and the absence of independent corroboration raise a possibility of false implication.

Although the prosecution relied on the informant and injured witnesses and produced injury reports, the Court found that the Investigating Officer had not been examined, depriving the defence of an opportunity to establish contradictions and explain material discrepancies.

The admitted prior land dispute and enmity supplied a possible motive for false implication.

The existence of an earlier counter-case, Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 159 of 1995, and the fact that all material witnesses were interested witnesses, with no independent witness examined, further weakened the prosecution evidence.

Applying the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, the Court held that these cumulative infirmities prevented the prosecution from establishing the appellants’ guilt with the required certainty.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11 September 2018 were set aside against Appellant Nos. 2–4.

They were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

The appeal had already abated against Appellant No. 1 due to his death.