Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, which was riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and embellishments. It observed that “the order of conviction and sentence is perverse and suffers from non-application of mind to the materials available on record.” The Court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.
Facts
The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of ₹20,000. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant had assaulted the deceased using a stick, leading to his death. An FIR was lodged, an inquest held, and postmortem was conducted.
The prosecution relied upon eyewitnesses including the informant, the deceased’s father, and other relatives. However, their statements varied on material aspects such as the sequence of events, location of the incident, and conduct of the accused. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to prior enmity and political rivalry.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased?
- Whether the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was legally sustainable based on the evidence adduced?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent statements, especially regarding the number of accused, nature of the assault, and timing of the events. It was argued that the investigation was biased, and the appellant was falsely implicated. No independent witness supported the prosecution, and the FIR was lodged with a delay, casting doubt on its veracity. The medical evidence also did not conclusively connect the cause of death with the alleged assault.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State supported the trial court’s findings and submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve the eyewitnesses who had implicated the appellant. It was argued that minor contradictions are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. The postmortem report corroborated the ocular evidence regarding the cause of death. The prosecution insisted that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Analysis of the Law
Section 304 Part II IPC deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death. The Court analysed whether the act attributed to the accused met this threshold and whether it was supported by consistent and credible evidence.
The Court examined the statements of all key witnesses and observed material contradictions and embellishments. It found that the evidence failed to establish the ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in:
- Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand: Held that serious contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence warrant acquittal.
- State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh: Emphasised that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when the prosecution’s story is unreliable.
- Vilas Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra: Clarified the distinction between culpable homicide and murder and reiterated that intention and knowledge must be clearly proved.
These cases were cited to underline the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the trial court had relied heavily on the testimonies of interested witnesses without testing their credibility against the backdrop of admitted contradictions. It remarked:
“A bare perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court reveals that there was no proper appreciation of the contradictions and inconsistencies and a selective reading of the prosecution evidence.”
“The investigation appears to have been conducted in a perfunctory manner, and there is clear omission in examining crucial independent witnesses.”
Further, the medical evidence failed to conclusively establish the cause of death. The Court held that this deficiency in evidence was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was unsustainable in law and on facts. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s findings were deemed perverse. The appellant was acquitted and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that conviction cannot be based on conjectures or half-baked narratives. The judgment affirms that:
- Contradictory and interested witness testimonies must be scrutinised with caution.
- Medical evidence must support ocular testimony.
- A fair trial is impossible without objective and impartial investigation.
FAQs
Q1: Can inconsistent eyewitness testimony be the sole basis for conviction?
No, when eyewitness testimonies are riddled with serious contradictions and are from interested parties, courts must exercise caution. Conviction cannot be sustained on such weak evidence.
Q2: What is the difference between culpable homicide and murder under Indian law?
Culpable homicide involves causing death without the intention to cause death but with knowledge. Murder requires both intention and knowledge. Section 304 Part II IPC applies to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Q3: Is medical evidence essential to support a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC?
Yes, in cases of homicide, medical evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating the prosecution story. Inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence weaken the case.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand – Cited to establish that contradictions weaken prosecution’s case.
- State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh – Applied to support the principle of benefit of doubt.
- Vilas Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra – Clarified elements required under Section 304 Part II IPC.
