Absence of Medical Evidence and Unexplained FIR Delay Vitiate Murder Conviction: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a life imprisonment sentence, ruling that a murder conviction cannot stand when the prosecution fails to establish a direct causal link between the alleged assault and the victim's death through medical documentation and timely reporting.

In a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhumara and Justice Rajesh Mazumder scrutinized the integrity of the trial court's findings. The Bench evaluated whether the evidence presented by the state was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite a 25-day delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and a total lack of medical history for the period between the incident and the victim's demise.

Key Takeaways

Procedural Integrity Overrides Partial Admissions

The Gauhati High Court clarified that an accused's explanation during examination does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the cause of death through independent, substantive evidence.

Medical Documentation is Non-Negotiable

Failure to produce hospital records, admission cards, or discharge summaries for a victim who was treated at multiple facilities creates a fatal gap in the chain of evidence.

FIR Delay Demands Logical Justification

While delay in reporting is not always fatal, the absence of a plausible explanation, especially when the victim was alive for nearly two weeks post-incident, casts grave doubt on the prosecution's narrative.

FIR Delays and Medical Gaps

The Gauhati High Court noted that the deceased was allegedly assaulted on May 16, 2020, but the FIR was only lodged on June 11, 2020. The prosecution's justification that the informant was busy with funeral rites was rejected as it failed to explain the inaction during the thirteen days the victim was still alive. Furthermore, the Bench highlighted the discrepancy between the testimonies claiming the victim died in the hospital and a witness statement suggesting he had been discharged and returned home.

The Gauhati High Court observed that "In view of the prosecution not having proved that the injury on the deceased, as recorded in the Post Mortem Examination report, was the result of the assault made on the deceased on 16/05/2020, besides the enormous delay in filing the FIR, we are of the view that a doubt has arisen as to whether the deceased had died due to the assault made on him on 16/05/2020. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) Thru Lr’S & Anr. Vs. Bhagwanthbuva (Dead) Thru Lr’S. & Ors has held that evidence must be weighed and not counted, we find that the testimony of the eye witness PW-3 does not prove that the assault on the deceased by the appellant on 16/05/2020, was the cause of death of the deceased, as there is no medical evidence for the period from the date of the assault to the date of the filing of the FIR."

Ratio

If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, an inculpatory part of an accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Furthermore, where there is a significant, unexplained delay in filing an FIR and a complete absence of medical records tracing the victim's condition from the time of injury to the time of death, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as the causal link for the offence of murder remains unproven.

Background

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia, for allegedly striking the deceased with an axe in May 2020. The prosecution relied heavily on an eyewitness (PW-3) and a seizure list for the weapon. However, the defense pointed out that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 charge lacked motive and was supported by contradictory evidence regarding where the weapon was seized—at the scene or the police station.

The Gauhati High Court analyzed several precedents including Hariprasad alias Kishan Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjunju and Ors. Vs. The State of Kerala ( "(1973) 3 SCC 114": 1972 CaseBase(SC) 606) regarding FIR delays. It also referenced Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana ( "(2015) 1 SCC 496": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 758) and Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam ( "(2019) 13 SCC 289": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 189) regarding the scope of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ultimately finding that the statement made by the appellant (claiming self-defense) could not be used against him as substantive evidence when the prosecution's narrative was inherently weak. Citing Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh & Anr ( "2002 4 Crimes (SC) 453": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 798), the Gauhati High Court noted that statements under Section 313 can only lend assurance to reliable evidence, which was missing here. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A(J)/76/2023
Case Title: MAHESWAR @ MAHESH KANDA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. B. Sarma, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.R. Kaushik, APP, Assam

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1466