The Patna High Court has ruled that the oral testimony of general witnesses is inadequate to establish a homicidal death resulting from an alleged assault. The court emphasized that only an expert in medical science can determine whether the death was caused by injuries or other factors. The ruling came during an appeal against a Sessions Court's decision, which had acquitted the accused of rioting and murder charges. The Sessions Court had found significant contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

 

A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Jitendra Kumar, stated that it is only an expert witness in the field of medical science who can provide an opinion on the nature of injuries and whether the deceased's death was caused by those injuries. The case stems from a confrontation between two groups, one armed with lathis and the other with bricks, resulting in one death. During the trial, three of the accused died, leaving two remaining for prosecution. Charges were framed against the two for attempt to murder, rioting, rioting with a deadly weapon, and being part of an unlawful assembly committing a crime in pursuit of a common objective. After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding material contradictions in the prosecution’s witnesses' testimonies. This led to the filing of an appeal before the High Court.

 

Upon examining the matter, the High Court noted that there were significant contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the origin and nature of the occurrence. "[W]e find that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on material points, like genesis and manner of the occurrence.", the court held

 

Additionally, the doctor who performed the autopsy on the deceased was not examined, nor was there any formal witness to present the postmortem or injury report. The court observed, "For want of evidence of medical expert regarding nature of injury and the connection between the injury and the death of the deceased, homicidal death of the victim at the hands of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 could not be proved."

 

As there was no medical expert evidence available, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal due to the alleged injury. The court also acknowledged the possibility of false implication due to existing enmity between the prosecution and the accused side. In light of these factors, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal, finding no illegality or infirmity in the judgment.

 

The High Court referred to principles regarding appeals against acquittal, citing several Supreme Court decisions. In Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1961), the court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of both legal and factual aspects before interfering with a trial court’s acquittal. Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) affirmed that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence. In H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023), summarising the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the apex Court listed the following:

1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence.
2. The appellate court can reassess both oral and documentary evidence.
3. The appellate court must determine whether the trial court’s view was a possible interpretation of the evidence.
4. If the trial court’s view is possible, the appellate court cannot overturn the acquittal simply because another view is also possible.
5. The appellate court can only interfere with an acquittal if it concludes that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the accused’s guilt, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.

 

 

Cause Title: Brij Bihari Ray v. State of Bihar And Ors.

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) 108 of 2021

Date: November-12-2024

Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Justice Jitendra Kumar

 

 

[Read/Download order]