Jharkhand HC Overturns 1996 Murder Conviction, Acquits Appellants Citing Contradictions Between Medical and Ocular Evidence - 2025-08-01

Jharkhand High Court Acquits Four in 48-Year-Old Murder Case, Cites 'Fatal' Contradictions in Evidence

Ranchi, Jharkhand – In a significant judgment bringing a 48-year-old case to a close, the Jharkhand High Court has acquitted four surviving appellants convicted of murder in 1996. A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar overturned the conviction, citing material contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly the stark conflict between medical evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

The appeal, pending since 1997, stemmed from a Sessions Court judgment that had convicted the appellants for murder and other offences related to a violent land dispute in 1977.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to November 21, 1977, when a dispute over harvesting paddy crops escalated into a violent chase. The informant and his associates took refuge in a house, which was then allegedly surrounded by the accused. The prosecution claimed that the accused broke through a wall and the roof, shooting arrows that resulted in the death of one man, Sk. Ibrahim, and injured another, Sk. Kausar.

In 1996, the Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder) with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), sentencing them to life imprisonment. Ten individuals were convicted, leading to two separate criminal appeals. Over the decades, six of the ten convicts passed away, causing their appeals to abate. The present judgment decides the fate of the four surviving appellants: Latif Nadaf, Ibrahim Nadaf, Pandu Ray, and Lakhindar Rai.

Appellants' Arguments: A Case Riddled with Doubt

The counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution's case was built on a weak foundation, highlighting several key discrepancies:

• Fatal Contradictions: The main allegation was that the deceased, Sk. Ibrahim, was fatally injured by an arrow to the eye. However, witnesses claimed Ibrahim was conscious and able to speak to the investigating officer after the incident. This was directly contradicted by the post-mortem report.
• Conflicting Medical Evidence: The doctor who performed the autopsy testified that the arrow had penetrated the cranium and brain, which would have almost certainly induced a coma, making it impossible for the victim to be conscious.
• Inconsistent Timelines: An injured witness, Sk. Kausar, was allegedly hurt on November 21, 1977. However, the doctor who treated him testified on examining him on November 24, 1977, that the injury was only about 12 hours old, suggesting the injury occurred on November 23, not during the main incident.
• Lack of Independent Witnesses: All prosecution witnesses were related to the informant or were his servants, casting doubt on their impartiality.
• Failure to Prove Common Object: The defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish that all appellants shared a common object to commit murder, a necessary ingredient for conviction under Section 149 IPC.

Prosecution's Stance

The State and the informant's counsel maintained that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent in describing the attack. They argued that minor discrepancies should not discredit the entire prosecution case and that the evidence was sufficient to prove a pre-determined assault leading to one death and another injury.

Court's Analysis: Medical Evidence Prevails Over Ocular Testimony

The High Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the contradictions pointed out by the defence to be "fatal to the prosecution case." The Bench emphasized the settled legal principle regarding conflicts between medical and ocular evidence.

In its analysis, the Court observed:

"It is established principle of law when there is difference in between the statement of witnesses and medical evidence, the medical evidence importance has to be given emphasis."

Citing the Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. , the Bench reiterated that while ocular evidence generally holds greater value, it can be disbelieved when medical evidence makes it wholly improbable. The Court found the doctor's testimony about the victim's comatose state more credible than the eyewitness accounts of him being conscious.

The Court highlighted a pivotal contradiction from the medical report of the second injured person, stating:

"...when doctor deposed that he had treated Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] on 24.11.1997 at 12.45 pm, it means that Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5] was not injured on day of occurrence i.e. on 21.11.1977, as alleged by the prosecution. This raises doubt in the credibility and reliability of the testimony of injured eye witness Sk. Kausar [P.W. 5]..."

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder, thus making the conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC unsustainable.

Final Verdict

Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. It ruled that the numerous contradictions created a "cloud of doubt upon the prosecution case."

The Court quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated December 12, 1996, and the order of sentence dated December 13, 1996. The four surviving appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds, ending a legal battle that spanned nearly half a century.