The Patna High Court has set aside convictions under Section 302/34 IPC after holding that the prosecution’s failure to examine key witnesses and produce critical medical and investigative evidence rendered the case fundamentally unreliable. The judgment reaffirms that conviction cannot rest on hearsay and contradictory testimonies when core forensic and procedural safeguards are absent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the fatal assault of Suresh Yadav on 30.05.1993 at a boring machine site in Village Ballopr, Police Station Halsi, District Lakhisarai. The prosecution alleged that Suresh Yadav was attacked by five accused persons - Daso Kewat, Saryug Yadav, Bhushan Yadav, Sunil Yadav, and Sahdeo Yadav - who had arrived with the intent to steal the boring machine. The assault resulted in a fatal bhala (spear) wound to the stomach. Suresh Yadav was taken to multiple hospitals before succumbing to his injuries at N.M.C.H., Patna. The incident occurred at approximately 10:30 PM.
Key Facts
- The informant, Karyanand Yadav, lodged the fardbeyan (complaint) on 03.06.1993 at 03:00 PM with S.I. B. Ram of Halsi P.S.
- Halsi P.S. Case No. 47 of 1993 was registered under Sections 382 and 302/34 IPC on 03.06.1993.
- The inquest report was prepared on 31.05.1993 at 14:00 hours at N.M.C.H., Patna, by the Sub-Inspector of Alamganj Police Station - prior to the filing of the FIR.
- The deceased was admitted to Sikandra Government Hospital, then Mokama Hospital, and finally N.M.C.H., Patna, where he died.
- The prosecution examined seven witnesses: P.W.1 (informant), P.W.2 (Bharat Yadav), P.W.3 (Madan Yadav), P.W.4 (Umesh Yadav, brother of deceased), P.W.5 (Jagdish Yadav), P.W.6 (Bonnu Yadav, brother-in-law), and P.W.7 (Ram Sanehi Pandit, advocate’s clerk).
- Documentary evidence included Ext. 1 (signature on fardbeyan), Ext. 2 (inquest report), and Ext. 3 (formal FIR).
- The accused denied all allegations during their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 13.06.2017.
- No defence evidence was adduced.
- The Investigating Officer and the treating doctor were not examined.
- The post-mortem report was not produced in court.
- The person who recorded the fardbeyan was not examined.
- The weapon of offence (bhala) was not seized or produced.
- A dispute between the deceased and a person named Saryug Sah was mentioned by P.W.5 but no action was taken against him.
Procedural History
- 30.05.1993: Occurrence - assault on Suresh Yadav at 10:30 PM.
- 31.05.1993: Inquest report prepared at N.M.C.H., Patna.
- 03.06.1993: FIR lodged at Halsi P.S. at 03:00 PM.
- 05.06.1993: FIR forwarded to Judicial Magistrate.
- 04.05.1996: Cognizance taken by the Court.
- 07.06.1996: Case committed to Sessions Court.
- 22.02.2000: Charges framed under Sections 302/34 and 382 IPC.
- 13.06.2017: Prosecution evidence closed.
- 16.05.2018: Trial Court convicted all accused under Section 302/34 IPC.
- 22.05.2018: Sentencing order passed - life imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine each; two months’ R.I. in default.
- 18.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Patna High Court (Division Bench).
The Parties' Positions
The appellants, Daso Kewat and Saryug Yadav, contended that the prosecution case was built on hearsay, contradictions, and material omissions. They argued that the absence of the Investigating Officer, doctor, and post-mortem report rendered the case legally unsustainable.
The State contended that PW-4, the brother of the deceased, was a reliable eyewitness who identified the appellants as assailants, and that the conviction should be upheld despite procedural lapses.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They requested that the conviction and sentence be set aside and that they be released immediately.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 302/34 IPC can be sustained when the prosecution fails to examine the Investigating Officer, the treating doctor, and produce the post-mortem report, and when the eyewitness testimony is contradicted by other witnesses and lacks corroboration.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the prosecution case was fatally flawed due to the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, which deprived the defence of the opportunity to test the credibility of the FIR and witness statements. The non-production of the post-mortem report meant the nature, cause, and timing of the fatal injury remained unverified. The inquest report dated 31.05.1993, prepared before the FIR on 03.06.1993, raised serious questions about the integrity of the investigation. The testimony of PW-4, the sole eyewitness, was directly contradicted by PW-5, who stated he arrived first and that PW-4 came 10 minutes later. The prosecution did not declare PW-5 hostile, so his testimony remained part of the record. The absence of the weapon and failure to explain the delay in lodging the FIR further weakened the case. The trial court’s reliance on hearsay evidence from PW-1 and PW-2, who were not present at the scene, was legally impermissible.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that the Investigating Officer and doctor were not examined and the post-mortem report was not produced. However, the State argued that PW-4’s identification of the appellants in moonlight was credible and sufficient to sustain conviction. The State maintained that the death of the deceased was undisputed and that the direct accusation by a close relative outweighed procedural irregularities.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found that the prosecution’s case was built on a foundation of hearsay and contradictions. P.W.1, the informant, was not present at the scene and relied entirely on the account of P.W.4. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were also not eyewitnesses and merely repeated what they were told. P.W.4, though claiming to be an eyewitness, was contradicted by P.W.5, who stated he arrived first and that P.W.4 came 10 minutes later. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to declare P.W.5 hostile meant his testimony could not be ignored.
"It is a well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the deceased, the entire story deserves to be rejected."
The Court relied on Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192 to hold that when the circumstances of the incident are doubtful and the evidence lacks credibility, conviction cannot be sustained. The Court further cited Munna Lal v. State of U.P. (2023) 18 SCC 661, noting that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the absence of the post-mortem report created a material lacuna that went to the root of the prosecution’s case.
The Court observed that the inquest report being prepared before the FIR was not merely an irregularity but a serious anomaly that undermined the entire narrative. The failure to produce the weapon, the non-examination of the doctor, and the lack of medical evidence on the nature of the injury rendered the prosecution’s version speculative. The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of these omissions created reasonable doubt that could not be resolved in favour of the prosecution.
The Verdict
The appeals were allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2018 and the sentencing order dated 22.05.2018 were set aside. The appellants, Daso Kewat and Saryug Yadav, were acquitted of all charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. They were directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical and Investigative Evidence Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on the production of post-mortem reports and the examination of the Investigating Officer in all homicide cases.
- Failure to produce either will invite acquittal under Pankaj and Munna Lal, even if eyewitnesses exist.
- Courts will not tolerate procedural shortcuts in capital cases.
Contradictory Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Ignored
- If two eyewitnesses give materially conflicting accounts, and one is not declared hostile, the court must weigh both.
- The prosecution must resolve contradictions through re-examination or declaration of hostility.
- Reliance on a single eyewitness, especially a close relative, without corroboration, is legally perilous.
Inquest Reports Must Align with FIR Timeline
- An inquest report dated before the FIR raises a presumption of fabrication.
- Defence counsel must challenge the sequence of events and demand explanation for temporal inconsistencies.
- Such anomalies, when unexplained, can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
