Ocular Evidence Inconsistent with Medical Reports and Hostile Witness Testimony Renders Conviction Unsustainable Under Section 302 IPC

The prosecution alleged that on July 12, 1996, the appellants, Naresh Paswan (armed with a saif) and Sanjay Paswan (armed with a lathi), assaulted Sitaram Paswan after Naresh prohibited the deceased from using a government hand pump.

The deceased succumbed to head injuries the following day at PMCH, Patna.

The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-V, Nalanda) convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC on March 26, 1998.

During the High Court appeal, it was noted that while P.W. 1 initially supported the case, he turned hostile upon recall, and all other material witnesses, including the informant (P.W. 6), were declared hostile.

1. Whether the conviction can be sustained when all material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the factum of assault during trial?

2. Whether a fundamental defect exists in the prosecution case due to a direct contradiction between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used?

The court primarily applied Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder and common intention.

If a witness specifies a sharp weapon was used but injuries are caused by a blunt object, the prosecution must clarify the discrepancy; otherwise, the account is falsified.

Where medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true, the oral testimony must be disbelieved.

While the I.O. (P.W. 7) claimed witnesses supported the case during investigation, such statements are not substantive evidence.

The court identified a "fundamental defect" in the contradiction between the FIR/oral testimony—which alleged the use of a saif (a sharp-cutting weapon)—and the post-mortem report, which stated the head injury was caused by a "hard blunt substance".

Since the prosecution failed to explain why a sharp weapon resulted in blunt-force injuries, the evidence was deemed "totally irreconcilable".

Applying the principle of harmonious construction, the court held that the medical evidence improbableized the ocular testimony to such an extent that the conviction could not stand.

The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated March 26/30, 1998. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released or discharged from their bail bonds.