Section 302 IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained When Prosecution Fails To Identify Which Specific Accused Delivered Fatal Blow In Group Clash: Gujarat High Court

"The prosecution failed to prove the specific act of the accused, corresponding them to the injury and the weapon used. When the injury on the head was with a single blow, then the accused who gave that single blow was required to be identified... [therefore] the present appellants-accused would be entitled for benefit of doubt." Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, acquitted two appellants convicted of murder, holding that when the prosecution fails to establish a common object under Section 149 of the IPC, the conviction must rest on the individual overt acts of the accused, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

A division bench of Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L.S. Pirzada observed that where the medical evidence indicates a single fatal injury but the prosecution attributes it to two different accused armed with different weapons, the failure to identify the specific assailant entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.

The dispute arose on 2 January 2009 in village Salal, originating from a verbal altercation between women of two families regarding a right of way. Following a subsequent incident involving a group clash, the complainant’s brother, Rajendrasinh, suffered fatal head injuries and died seven days later. The trial court acquitted seven other co-accused but convicted the two appellants, Pravinsinh Vajesinh Parmar and Tejendrasinh Jagatsinh Parmar, under Section 302 of the IPC, despite discarding the theory of unlawful assembly.

The primary questions before the court were whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained in the absence of a proved common object under Section 149 IPC, and whether the appellants could be convicted for individual acts when the prosecution failed to clarify which of the two accused caused the single fatal head injury. The court also examined the impact of the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence.

Failure to Prove Common Object

The Court noted that the trial judge had already acquitted all nine accused of the charges of unlawful assembly under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC. Consequently, the prosecution’s reliance on vicarious liability was negated. The bench clarified that in the absence of a common object, the court must strictly examine the individual overt acts of each accused to determine criminal liability for the substantive offence.

Suppression of Genesis and Non-Explanation of Injuries

The bench emphasized the importance of the prosecution explaining injuries sustained by the accused in a cross-case. Citing Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that non-explanation of injuries on the accused suggests that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident. In this case, the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused side led to the conclusion that the complainant’s version of events was not the full or true story.

Court Explains Scope Of Section 482 CrPC

The Court found that the incident was a sudden fight between two groups without premeditation, attracting the principles of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Regarding the medical evidence, the Court observed: "Unless the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency."

Benefit of Doubt in Individual Acts

The medical testimony established that the deceased suffered only one fatal head injury. However, prosecution witnesses claimed that one appellant struck with a sickle while the other struck with a sword. Because the prosecution could not scientifically or through credible evidence prove which weapon caused the fatal blow, the Court held that it could not arbitrarily assign guilt to either appellant.

"The prosecution failed to prove the specific act of the accused, corresponding them to the injury and the weapon used. When the injury on the head was with a single blow, then the accused who gave that single blow was required to be identified."

Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the specific assailant for the singular fatal injury, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The Appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges, with the Court concluding that the prosecution’s case against the individuals was built on discrepancies that necessitated the benefit of doubt.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026