Back
Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Authorship of Crime: Man in Murder Case under
In a significant verdict delivering justice after two decades of legal proceedings, the has overturned the of one Babu Das, who had been sentenced to for the murder of Natabara Gouda. The Bench, comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sashikanta Mishra, ruled that while the medical evidence confirmed a , it was insufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator in the face of significant evidentiary gaps.
A Case Built on Inconsistency The prosecution’s narrative, which led to the initial of the appellant in a in , was predicated on the testimony of two key witnesses: PW-11, who was accompanying the deceased, and PW-12, the son of the deceased. The state alleged that the appellant had intercepted the deceased on suspicion of witchcraft and assaulted him with a lathi.
However, the High Court identified critical discrepancies upon review. While PW-11 stated that the deceased was missing when he returned to the scene with the son, PW-12 claimed he witnessed the appellant dragging and assaulting the deceased towards a lane. Justice Sashikanta Mishra remarked, “All these raise considerable doubts in mind as regards the veracity of the versions of PW-11 and PW-12, both of whom... cannot be treated as reliable witnesses.”
The Limits of Medical Evidence The prosecution heavily relied upon the medical evidence provided by the autopsy surgeon (PW-13), which cataloged nine distinct injuries and suggested a hard, blunt object—like a lathi—was used to inflict the fatal blows. While the defense did not contest the fact that the death was homicidal, the High Court emphasized that medical confirmation of the manner of death does not automatically equate to the authorship of the crime.
The court noted that the prosecution failed to build a bridge between the physical findings and the accused. With the seizure witnesses turning and no forensic blood-stain evidence on the recovered lathi, the court found the chain of evidence broken.
Shifting the Burden: A Judicial Critique Perhaps the most scathing aspect of the judgment was the critique of the trial court’s approach. The observed that the lower court had improperly shifted the onto the defense.
"Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court has not taken note of the aforementioned vital aspects and the apparent gaps in evidence. On the other hand, the trial Court has shifted the burden at times to the defence, which cannot be countenanced in law."
The court further dismissed the "last-seen" theory, citing that the manifest contradictions between the available testimonies rendered the theory untenable.
Final Verdict and Implications Concluding that a cannot stand on suspicion alone, the High Court set aside the judgment.
"For the foregoing reasons therefore, we are satisfied that the case of the prosecution not being free from , the benefit ought to go in favour of the accused."
The appellant, who had faced the shadow of a life sentence for over 23 years, was ordered to be released, with the court directing their bail bonds to be discharged. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to the lower judiciary that the fundamental principle of "reasonable doubt" remains the bedrock of , and that a requires a cohesive narrative of evidence that medical findings alone cannot supply.
