Oral Testimony Of General Witness About Nature Of Injury Sans Medical Evidence/ Expert Opinion Insufficient To Prove Homicidal Death: Patna HC
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court has recently upheld the acquittal of three women accused of murder, while ruling that oral testimony of general witnesses regarding nature of injury suffered by the deceased (without corroboration from medical experts) is insufficient to establish homicidal death.
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Jitendra Kumar, observed, “Oral evidence of general witnesses is not sufficient to prove the homicidal death on account of the alleged assault. It is only by a witness, expert in medical science, can opine regarding the nature of the injury and whether the death of the deceased was caused by such injury. But there is no such medical evidence on record and hence, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts the homicidal death on account of the alleged injury.”
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Fast Track Court which had acquitted the respondent women of charges under Sections 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 307 (Attempt to murder), and 302 (Punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while citing material contradictions in witness testimonies and the absence of crucial medical and forensic evidence in its decision.
The Patna High Court in its judgement, upheld the acquittal of the three women, affirming the trial court's decision, while pointing out significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case regarding its failure to produce the postmortem or injury reports and did not examine the doctor who conducted the autopsy.
The court also pointed out the discrepancies in the informant's statements, while observing that, “the informant in his fardbeyan has stated that the occurrence had taken place on account of altercation in connection with plucking of mangoes.”
The Court also reiterated the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing Supreme Court's decision in the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, whereby it was held that “if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible.”
“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by learned Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against Respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond reasonable doubts is reasonable and possible view. Therefore, there is no requirement to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal for want of any illegality or infirmity in it,” the High Court concluded while dismissing the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment.
Case Title: Abhishek Krishna Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr