Back
Decades-Old Murder Verdict Crumbles: Meghalaya HC Frees Trio Over Gruesome Evidence Gaps
In a striking reversal of a conviction that lingered through three decades of judicial limbo, the has acquitted three brothers—Shri Tngen Muruh, Shri Tne Muruh, and Shri She Muruh—in a 1991 village murder case. A Division Bench comprising Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee set aside their life sentences under , slamming irreconcilable contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical findings. The ruling, delivered on April 29, 2026, in Crl.A. No.33 of 2023 , underscores how prosecution lapses can unravel even long-standing cases.
From Paddy Fields to Court Delays: The Twisted Timeline
The saga began on November 16, 1991, in Lumkhudung village, West Jaintia Hills, when Sada Muruh, described as mentally unwell, was allegedly beaten to death in his mother's paddy field by five cousins, including the appellants. An FIR lodged by PW-3 (Sada's brother) named the assailants and claimed eyewitnesses, including Sada's father and Dal Ryngkhlem, saw the assault. Registered two days later as Jowai PS Case No.166(9)/1991 under , the probe led to a 1994 charge-sheet.
But trial dragged on: charges framed in 1995, first witness examined in 2001, second in 2022—blamed on absconding accused and court transfers post-judiciary separation. Two co-accused died during proceedings, leaving the trio. , convicted them in August 2023, sentencing life terms. The appeal highlighted a case where the body lay unattended for two days due to "Niamtre" religious customs prohibiting unnatural death removals—a detail the HC later deemed no excuse for police inaction.
Defense Strikes at Cracks, Prosecution Banks on Family Ties
Appellants' counsel, Senior Advocate S. Chakrawarty with E. Laloo, tore into the case: FIR omitted PW-1 and PW-3 as eyewitnesses, naming others unexamined; conflicting stories (dragging vs. chasing victim); no weapons mentioned despite post-mortem showing sharp cuts and shattered skull; unexplained two-day FIR/police delay; no motive; post-mortem silent on death time. Citing Ram Narain v. State of Punjab (1975) and others, they argued medical-ocular mismatch doomed the prosecution.
State counsel R. Gurung countered with "direct, cogent" PW-1 (sister) and PW-3 (brother) testimonies of bare-handed fatal assault, corroborated by doctor PW-4. Relatives aren't inherently unreliable ( Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana , 2005), no false-implication motive shown, non-examined FIR witnesses irrelevant ( State of MP v. Mansingh , 2003). Flat denials in statements sealed guilt ( Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh , 2012).
When Bare Fists Can't Explain Broken Skulls: The HC's Scalpel
The Bench dissected the flaws meticulously. Eyewitnesses described no weapons, yet PW-4's post-mortem (conducted on-site November 18) revealed horrors: broken head with ruptured membrane, incised wound (3x2 cm), shattered chin/jaw/teeth—death by hemorrhage.
"Incised wound... could not have been caused without use of any sharp object. Human head cannot be broken by strike of empty hand,"
the court noted, invoking duty to reconcile ocular with medical evidence (
Kartarey v. State of UP
, 1976;
Ishwar Singh v. State of UP
, 1976).
Unspecified death time fueled doubt—did victim die on spot November 16 (as claimed) or later? No bloodstains noted, no assailant hand injuries, no weapons recovered. Religious customs leaving the body exposed didn't justify zero immediate probe or aid. FIR timing discrepancies (4 PM vs. 6:30-7 PM) and non-exhibited inquest report compounded gaps. Relatives' evidence, though scrutinized ( Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh , 2017), crumbled without medical bridge.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Incised wound indicated in the post mortem report could not have been caused without use of any sharp object. Human head cannot be broken by strike of empty hand."(Para 30)
"The prosecution evidence that the dead body was lying in the place of occurrence for two days because of the religious practice of the victim's family does not stand to reason non-arrival of the investigating authorities to the crime scene immediately after the incident and non-providing of instant medical attention to the victim."(Para 34)
"In the present case, it is impossible to say with certainty that the injuries were caused by the assault of the appellants. Hence, the conviction of the appellants u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained."(Para 31)
"Absence of material on record to establish that such injuries could have been inflicted by the use of bare hands."(Para 28)
Freedom After 35 Years: Acquittal and Its Ripples
The appeal succeeded outright:
"The impugned Judgment... is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case."
(Para 35). This isn't just release—it's a caution for prosecutors: link eyewitness tales to forensics, or risk benefit of doubt. In remote cases plagued by delays and customs, it demands swifter, thorough probes. As external reports note, such rulings spotlight how "extraordinary delays" and unexamined gaps can topple convictions decades later.
