-
by sayum
20 August 2026 10:29 AM
"As per the statement of Dr. Anil Damor (PW-2), no injury was found on the hand of the deceased as stated by Jetabai (PW-3) in the FIR as well as in the statement before the Court that the present appellant caused injury on the hand of the deceased by means of stone. In view of the opinion of PW-2, benefit of doubt can be given to appellant." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a judgment, held that an eyewitness testimony that stands in direct contradiction to medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi observed that material discrepancies between ocular testimony and the medical autopsy report warrant extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
The case originated from an incident on the night of March 2, 2014, in Village Gola Chhoti, where the informant Jetabai and her husband Bucha were sleeping inside their locked home. According to the prosecution, the appellant Shailbai and her co-accused Lachchhu broke into the house at around 1:00 AM, whereupon Lachchhu allegedly struck the deceased on the head with a stone, and Shailbai allegedly inflicted an injury on the deceased's hand. Bucha succumbed to his injuries on the spot, leading to the registration of an FIR at Jhabua Police Station and a subsequent trial resulting in a conviction under Sections 450 and 302/34 of the IPC.
The primary question before the court was whether the ocular testimony of the sole eyewitness could sustain a conviction for murder when material portions of her deposition contradicted the medical evidence on record. The bench was also called upon to evaluate whether the prosecution successfully established the foundational facts regarding house trespass and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC.
Medical Evidence Undermines Eyewitness Credibility - Testimony At Variance With Autopsy Report
The court closely examined the deposition of Jetabai, designated as PW-3, who claimed that the surviving appellant Shailbai had struck the deceased on the hand with a stone. However, upon reviewing the testimony of Dr. Anil Damor, designated as PW-2, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the bench noted that no injuries whatsoever were found on the hands of the deceased. The medical expert recorded lacerated wounds on the head and right cheek, along with an occipital fracture and broken ribs, but entirely omitted any mention of hand trauma.
Court Relies On Settled Precedents On Medical Discrepancies
The bench invoked the established legal principle that ocular testimony irreconcilably at variance with expert medical opinion casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Referencing the Rajasthan High Court ruling in Satya Prakash Pathak v. State, the judges reiterated that when eyewitness accounts are found to be untrustworthy and contrary to medical findings, it is unsafe to rely upon them for recording a finding of guilt against an accused.
Lapses In Police Investigation
The court also highlighted critical gaps in the police investigation, specifically noting that the prosecution failed to establish how the accused allegedly entered a locked house during the dead of night. The bench observed that the lack of proper investigation regarding the mode of entry further weakened the foundational matrix of the case against the appellant.
Final Directions And Acquittal
Concluding that the trial court had misread and misappreciated the evidence on record, the Division Bench allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated January 3, 2015. The court extended the benefit of the doubt to appellant Shailbai, acquitted her of all charges under Sections 450 and 302/34 of the IPC, and ordered her immediate release from custody unless required in any other pending matter.
Date of Decision: 12 August 2026
