Patna High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case, Citing 'Fatal' Non-Examination of IO and Contradictory Witness Testimonies - 2025-03-07

Patna High Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Acquittal in 2008 Assault Case Citing Inconsistent Testimonies and Prosecution Lapses

PATNA - The Patna High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of five individuals accused of attempt to murder and other serious offences, affirming the trial court's decision. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that major contradictions in the testimonies of injured witnesses, coupled with the "fatal" non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO), rendered the prosecution's case unreliable.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case "up to the hilt," and the trial court's decision to grant the accused the benefit of doubt was judicious.

Case Background

The appeal was filed by Jagannath Prasad Sinha, the original informant, against a 2022 judgment from the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, which acquitted Krishna Murari, Arun Chaudhary, Pinki Chaudhary, Sarvesh Chaudhary, and Praveen Kumar. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 307 (attempt to murder), and 427 (mischief causing damage).

The incident dates back to December 11, 2008, when Sinha alleged that the accused, armed with swords, iron rods, and a pistol, attacked a relative's vehicle parked outside his house. He claimed that when he and his son, Arish Kumar, intervened, they and their associates were brutally assaulted, leading to grievous injuries. The motive was attributed to an ongoing land dispute.

Arguments in Court

• Appellant's Submissions: The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court had erred by discarding the testimonies of three injured eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-6). It was contended that minor discrepancies should not be grounds for disbelieving injured witnesses, and the medical reports (PW-5) confirmed grievous injuries caused by sharp weapons. The non-examination of the IO, the counsel submitted, should not vitiate the trial unless prejudice to the defence could be demonstrated.

• Respondents' Defence: Counsel for the respondents supported the acquittal, highlighting that the presumption of innocence was reinforced by the trial court's verdict. They argued that the prosecution's failure to examine key independent witnesses and the IO led to an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. They pointed to a pre-existing land dispute and a counter-case filed by the accused as the real context for the altercation, suggesting a mutual fight rather than a one-sided attack.

High Court's Decisive Findings

After a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence, the High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution's case, upholding the trial court's reasoning.

"On microscopic analysis of the version of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 it is apparent that they have not deposed in consonance of the case of the prosecution so far the nature of weapon and there use by the accused person... is concerned and this gives strong ground of reasonable doubt regarding presence of the witness at the place of occurrence."

The Court highlighted the following key points in its judgment:

1. Contradictory Witness Accounts: The Bench noted that the injured witnesses gave materially inconsistent versions of the assault, changing "the mode and manner of assault in their own colour." There were significant discrepancies regarding who wielded which weapon and who assaulted whom, which undermined their credibility.

2. Fatal Non-Examination of IO: The Court deemed the failure to examine the Investigating Officer as fatal to the prosecution's case. It observed that without the IO's testimony, the defence was deprived of the opportunity to prove contradictions between the witnesses' court depositions and their initial statements recorded by the police.

3. Unreliable Medical Evidence: The Court cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the medical reports. It noted that one injured witness (PW-1) failed to appear before a Medical Board constituted to verify his injuries. Furthermore, the doctor's claim that the hospital lacked a CT scan facility was contradicted by an RTI reply produced by the defence, showing the facility had been operational since 2006. Crucial documents like the Bed Head Ticket (BHT) and the radiologist's report were also not produced.

4. Motive and Pre-existing Enmity: The Court acknowledged the long-standing land dispute between the parties, evidenced by multiple litigations, including a title suit filed by the appellant that was ultimately dismissed. This established a clear motive for potential false implication and necessitated a higher standard of proof from the prosecution.

Final Judgment

Concluding that the trial court had taken a plausible and well-reasoned view of the evidence, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

"In ultimate analysis, we find that the learned trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the evidences on the record and the findings of the learned trial court would not need any interference by this Court," the Bench ordered while dismissing the appeal.