Benefit of Doubt Applied When Prosecution Witnesses Turn Hostile and FSL Report on Weapon Is Absent | Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that conviction cannot rest on conjecture when prosecution evidence is unreliable. In a case marked by hostile witnesses and absence of forensic corroboration, the Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains unshakably on the prosecution.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Deenu, son of Dunni Choudhary, was convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his son, Rajesh, on 05.06.2006. The prosecution alleged that Rajesh, while intoxicated, attempted to sexually assault his sister-in-law, Sakun Bai, prompting Deenu to strike him with a wooden washing paddle (mogariya), resulting in fatal head injuries. The case was registered as Crime No. 113/2006 under Section 302 IPC, later amended to Section 304 Part I upon conviction.

Key Facts

• The deceased, Rajesh, was the appellant’s son, aged approximately 35 years, and had a history of alcohol abuse.
• On 05.06.2006, at approximately 4:45 PM, Rajesh was allegedly attempting to drag Sakun Bai, his brother Prathmesh’s wife, toward the bed.
• Sakun Bai raised an alarm; the appellant allegedly intervened and struck Rajesh with a mogariya, causing fatal injuries.
• Rajesh fell and died at the scene.
• FIR was registered at Police Station Gaurela on 05.06.2006 (Ex. P-1).
• Inquest report (Ex. P-16) and post-mortem (Ex. P-9) were conducted by Dr. S.S. Painkra (PW-5), who opined death was due to coma with hemorrhagic shock from severe head injuries, and was homicidal in nature.
• A wooden washing paddle (mogariya) was seized from the appellant’s house (Ex. P-13).
• Blood-stained clothes and soil were also seized (Ex. P-15).
• No FSL report was produced to confirm the weapon’s connection to the injuries.
• The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including Sakun Bai (PW-4), Prathmesh (PW-1), Mukesh (PW-2), Rakesh (PW-3), and Sushila Bai (PW-6).

Procedural History

• 05.06.2006: Incident occurred at Samata Nagar, Sagaratola, Gaurela, District Bilaspur.
• 05.06.2006: FIR registered as Crime No. 113/2006.
• 06.06.2006: Post-mortem conducted at Primary Health Center, Gaurela.
• 20.07.2006: Charge-sheet filed before Magistrate.
• 15.09.2006: Case committed to Sessions Court.
• 31.07.2007: Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, convicted appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/-.
• 2007: Appeal filed before the High Court as CRA No. 681 of 2007.
• 07.04.2026: Judgment reserved on 24.02.2026; pronounced and uploaded on 07.04.2026.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• All prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
• The sole eyewitness, Sakun Bai, retracted her police statement and testified that Rajesh fell and hit his head on the doorframe.
• No FSL report was produced to link the mogariya to the injuries.
• The injuries could have resulted from accidental fall.
• The appellant was entitled to the benefit of private defence under Section 100 IPC.
• The trial court erred in convicting based on conjecture and not on reliable evidence.

For the Respondent/State

• The trial court correctly appreciated the evidence.
• The post-mortem report established homicidal death.
• The seizure of the mogariya and blood-stained clothes corroborated the prosecution case.
• Hostility of witnesses does not automatically lead to acquittal if other evidence supports the case.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal on the grounds of insufficient evidence, benefit of doubt, and failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He also sought release from the sentence imposed.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC can be sustained when all material prosecution witnesses turn hostile, the sole eyewitness retracts her statement, and no forensic report links the seized weapon to the fatal injuries.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Counsel relied on Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 7 SCC 78 to argue that non-production of an FSL report, where it is expected and within the prosecution’s control, casts serious doubt on the authenticity of seized articles. He further contended that the testimony of Sakun Bai, Prathmesh, Mukesh, and Rakesh consistently pointed to an accidental death due to impact with the doorframe. The absence of any independent corroboration, coupled with the hostile nature of all witnesses, rendered the prosecution case inherently unreliable. He emphasized that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to shift the burden onto the accused where multiple persons had access to the scene.

For the Respondent/State

The State argued that the post-mortem report conclusively established homicidal death and that the seizure of the mogariya, though uncorroborated by FSL, was sufficient to establish the appellant’s involvement. It contended that hostility of witnesses is not fatal if the court can rely on documentary evidence and the accused’s conduct. The State maintained that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was correct and should not be disturbed.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case collapsed under its own weight. The testimony of the sole eyewitness, Sakun Bai (PW-4), was pivotal. She initially gave a statement to police implicating the appellant but retracted it in court, stating that Rajesh slipped and struck his head on the doorframe. The Court noted that her testimony was consistent with that of Prathmesh (PW-1), Mukesh (PW-2), and Rakesh (PW-3), all of whom denied the prosecution version.

"All material witnesses, including Prathmesh (PW-1), Mukesh (PW-2), Rakesh (PW-3) and sole eye-witness Shakun Bai (PW-4), have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case."

The Court further held that the non-production of the FSL report on the mogariya was fatal. Citing Balwan Singh, it observed that when the prosecution fails to produce a forensic report for an incriminating article, the seizure becomes suspect and cannot be relied upon. The Court emphasized that the weapon’s connection to the injuries was speculative without scientific confirmation.

The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, noting that the house was not in the exclusive possession of the appellant. With multiple family members present, the burden could not be shifted to him to explain the occurrence. The prosecution failed to establish foundational facts pointing to his exclusive involvement.

"In such circumstances, the prosecution is required to first establish foundational facts pointing towards the exclusive involvement of the accused. In absence of such cogent evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused merely on the basis of Section 106 of the Evidence Act."

The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of reasonable doubt, arising from hostile witnesses, lack of forensic evidence, and alternative explanation for injuries, entitled the appellant to acquittal.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2007 under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant, Deenu, was acquitted of all charges and granted the benefit of doubt. He was already on bail and directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount before the trial court, effective for six months. He was also required to undertake to appear before the Supreme Court if a Special Leave Petition is filed against this judgment.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Hostile Witnesses Can Defeat Prosecution Cases

• Practitioners must treat hostile witnesses not as automatic failures but as critical indicators of evidentiary weakness.
• Where multiple witnesses, including eyewitnesses, retract or contradict prior statements, the prosecution’s case is vulnerable unless independently corroborated.
• Courts will not convict based on a single uncorroborated theory when all direct witnesses disavow it.

FSL Reports Are Non-Negotiable for Physical Evidence

• Seizure of weapons or blood-stained items without FSL reports is legally insufficient to prove causation.
• In cases involving blunt force trauma or weapons, FSL reports are now considered essential under Balwan Singh.
• Prosecutors must ensure forensic analysis is completed and produced; failure will invite acquittal.

Section 106 Cannot Be Used to Shift Burden in Shared Spaces

• Section 106 of the Evidence Act applies only where the accused has exclusive control over the facts.
• In domestic settings with multiple occupants, the prosecution must establish direct involvement before invoking this section.
• Courts will not infer guilt from silence or proximity alone when the scene is shared.