Specific ocular attribution cannot sustain conviction when contradicted by medical and physical evidence.

On 2 May 1999, a quarrel allegedly occurred between the deceased, Md. Nehal, and appellant Md. Rajan @ Feku near Nehal’s house.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants thereafter damaged the tiled roof of Nehal’s house.

When Nehal, accompanied by his mother Taiba Khatoon (PW 4), brother Md. Kamal (PW 10/informant), and Md. Najme (PW 5), proceeded towards the police station, the appellants allegedly chased and assaulted him near Jaggi Chak with knives, sword, saif, bhala and lathis.

Nehal sustained multiple injuries and died during treatment at Sadar Hospital, Nawada.

The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge-sheet was subsequently submitted against the appellants.

The Trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and convicted all seven appellants, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a further one year’s simple imprisonment in default.

The prosecution principally relied upon PW 4, PW 5 and PW 10, while two witnesses were declared hostile and other witnesses were hearsay or formal witnesses.

In appeal, the appellants challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the place and manner of occurrence, the absence of blood or seized material at the alleged scene, the medical inconsistencies, suppression of the genesis of the occurrence, and defects in investigation.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the assault and caused the homicidal death of Md. Nehal in furtherance of the common object of an unlawful assembly under Sections 302/149 IPC.

Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses, including the alleged injured witness, could safely be relied upon when it was not adequately corroborated by the medical and physical evidence.

Whether the absence of blood or other incriminating material at the alleged second place of occurrence, the failure to investigate the alleged drain dispute, and the non-seizure of broken roof tiles created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s account.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, requiring proof of the accused’s participation in an unlawful assembly and liability for murder committed in prosecution of its common object.

It reiterated that relationship with the deceased does not, by itself, disqualify an eyewitness, but the testimony of related witnesses must be scrutinized with greater care, particularly where independent corroboration is absent.

The Court applied the principle that conviction depends on the quality, reliability and consistency of evidence, not on the number of witnesses.

Medical evidence is ordinarily corroborative, but where the prosecution gives a specific account of several weapons and blows, a material incompatibility between the ocular account and the medical findings may undermine the prosecution case; relying on Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court noted that ocular evidence may be disbelieved where medical evidence completely rules it out.

The fundamental criminal-law principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt where the evidence is an inseparable mixture of truth and exaggeration, was also applied.

Although the post-mortem established that Nehal died a homicidal death from a sharp-force injury to the vertex, it did not corroborate the detailed attribution of separate knife, sword, saif and bhala blows made by PW 4, PW 5 and PW 10.

The deceased had only one incised wound, while the remaining injuries were lacerations, swelling and abrasions; there was no punctured injury corresponding to the alleged bhala blow or additional incised injuries corresponding to the separate knife and sword blows.

The doctor also stated that some injuries could have resulted from a fall and did not connect the injuries with the particular weapons attributed to individual appellants.

PW 5’s claim that he suffered a sword injury was likewise inconsistent with the medical report, which recorded only simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt substance.

The alleged assault was said to have caused extensive bleeding, yet the Investigating Officer found no blood or mark of occurrence at the second place of occurrence.

The prosecution also failed to establish objectively the alleged roof damage, as the broken tiles were not seized, and the Investigating Officer did not investigate the alleged drain dispute said to constitute the genesis of the occurrence.

In these circumstances, the evidence of the related witnesses could not safely establish the individual participation or common-object liability of each appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13 September 2004 were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of reasonable doubt.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and their sureties discharged; the Registry was directed to transmit the judgment and lower-court record to the Trial Court.