Statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

The appellants, Yodha Bind and Dharam Nath Bind, were convicted by the Trial Court on 30.01.2004 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 r/w 34 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 20.09.1999, following a dispute over Rs. 10/-, the appellants assaulted the informant (Tapeshwar Bind) with lathis

The informant, who suffered from asthma, subsequently died in the hospital

During the trial, all material eyewitnesses—comprising the deceased's family members (PWs 1–3 and 5–9)—turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version

The conviction was primarily based on the medical evidence and statements recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC

1. Whether the trial court was correct in convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 304 r/w 34 of the IPC despite material witnesses turning hostile

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the intention to cause death or knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death

Section 304 of the IPC, which requires the prosecution to prove either an "intention" to cause death/bodily injury or "knowledge" that the act is likely to cause death

Section 161 and Section 162 of the CrPC, which mandate that statements made to the police during investigation are not substantive evidence and can only be used to contradict witnesses under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act

The principle from Sunayna Devi v. State of Bihar and Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, holding that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) who filed the charge-sheet is fatal if it causes prejudice to the accused

The High Court found that the Trial Court's conviction was legally unsustainable as it relied solely on Section 161 CrPC statements, which are inadmissible as substantive evidence

The court noted that while the medical evidence (PWs 4 and 11) confirmed the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock, it did not connect the specific accused persons to the injuries

Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the material independent witnesses (Kushan, Byash, and Ram Sagar) mentioned in the fardbeyan who allegedly rescued the deceased, as well as the IO who completed the investigation against these specific appellants

Since all family witnesses turned hostile, there was a total lack of substantive evidence to prove the "intention" or "knowledge" required for a conviction under Section 304

The court observed that the Trial Court overstepped by treating police statements as proof of guilt

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2004 and the order of sentence dated 31.01.2004, and acquitted the appellants. The bail bonds of the appellants were ordered to be cancelled