Patna HC Acquits Two Tenants In 1980 Death After Doctor’s Sharp-Weapon Finding Clashed With Eyewitnesses’ Rod-And-Stick Account

The appeal challenged the appellants’ convictions for the fatal assault of Purushottam Prasad: Vijay Kumar Rai was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Prabhu Narayan Rai under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Each was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹5,000.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute at the tenants’ residence, the appellants struck Purushottam with a mosquito-net stick and an iron rod; he later died in hospital.

The prosecution relied principally on four related eyewitnesses.

The emergency doctor, PW 9, found two incised wounds and attributed them to a sharp-cutting weapon, excluding an iron rod as their cause.

The post-mortem doctor and Investigating Officer were not examined, and the post-mortem and inquest reports were not duly proved.

The trial court convicted the appellants while acquitting the co-accused.

Sections 302 and 34 IPC govern, respectively, the offence of murder and liability for a criminal act done in furtherance of common intention.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence reasonably admits of two views, the view favourable to the accused should ordinarily be adopted.

Non-examination of an Investigating Officer is not invariably fatal; its effect depends on whether it caused prejudice to the accused, including by preventing effective proof of contradictions or testing of the investigation, as stated in Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317.

Medical evidence is generally corroborative, but a material conflict between it and the eyewitness account may undermine the prosecution case in the circumstances of the particular case.

The eyewitnesses attributed blunt weapons—a rod and a mosquito-net stick—to the appellants, but PW 9 described the deceased’s injuries as incised wounds caused by a sharp-cutting weapon and expressly excluded an iron rod.

No eyewitness attributed use of a sharp weapon to either appellant, and the prosecution did not connect any such weapon to them or explain the wrist injury.

The witnesses also differed about the deceased’s and assailants’ positions during the assault; the Court considered these discrepancies significant alongside the medical conflict.

The Investigating Officer’s absence prevented effective examination of alleged contradictions and of the scene and seized articles; the post-mortem evidence was also unavailable to establish the precise cause of death.

In that context, the Court found the prosecution evidence insufficiently reliable to prove the appellants’ responsibility beyond reasonable doubt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted both appellants on benefit of doubt.

As they were on bail, they were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities.