"Human Head Cannot Be Broken By Empty Hand Strike": Meghalaya High Court Acquits Murder Accused
While the incident occurred in 1991 and charges were framed in 1995, the evidence of PW-2 was recorded only in 2022, twenty years after PW-1 was examined.
The Meghalaya High Court has observed that where the prosecution alleges a victim died on the spot due to a physical assault, it bears a heavy burden to prove the manner of injury through an expert opinion. In this instance, the Bench held that the statement of eyewitnesses could not be blindly accepted when the medical evidence renders the ocular version of the cause of death wholly improbable.
While setting aside the sentence of life imprisonment of the three accused, the Bench noted the physical improbability of the prosecution's narrative regarding a bare-handed assault. The Court pointed out that because the human head is significantly harder than the bones of the hand, an attempt to break a skull with a strike of an empty hand would inevitably cause injury to the assailant’s own hand and fist.
Justice W. Diengdoh and Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed, “…The nature and the severity of the injuries described in the post-mortem report does not suggest that such injuries could have been inflicted by bare hands without use of any instrument or weapon. The eye witness account does not disclose use of any weapon or instrument by the appellants…Human head cannot be broken by strike of empty hand. If any attempt is made to break head by hand, the same would definitely cause injury to the hand and fist of the assailant as the head is significantly harder than the bones of hand…”.
Senior Advocate S. Chakrawarty appeared for the appellants and R. Gurung, GA appeared for the respondent.
The case originated from an FIR dated November 16, 1991, alleging that five persons murdered Sada Muruh at Lumkhudung village.
Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-3, siblings of the deceased, testified that the accused persons dragged or chased the victim to a paddy field and assaulted him until he died on the spot. The defense argued that these witnesses were not named as eyewitnesses in the original FIR and that their testimony regarding a bare-handed assault was inconsistent with the severe injuries found during the post-mortem.
The trial was marked by a shocking delay of over thirty years, as while the incident occurred in 1991 and charges were framed in 1995, the evidence of PW-2 was recorded only in 2022, twenty years after PW-1 was examined. During this protracted period, two of the five accused passed away. On August 4, 2023, the Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills, convicted the three surviving appellants under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, leading to the present appeal.
The Court highlighted critical lapses, starting with a two-day delay in the police reaching the crime scene despite the FIR being signed the night of the incident. It noted that the post-mortem report was silent on the approximate time of death, failing to confirm if the victim died during the alleged assault. Most significantly, the Court found that the severe injuries, including a broken skull, ruptured membranes, and broken teeth, could not have been inflicted by bare hands as suggested by the eyewitnesses.
“The failure on the part of the prosecution to bring on record the probable time of death of the victim and to connect the injuries on the dead body with the eye-witnesses account casts a serious doubt over the prosecution case. 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. Furthermore, nonrecovery of any weapon or object from the place of occurrence by the investigating authority and absence of blood stains on the crime scene creates a grave doubt over the prosecution version of the matter. In the absence of any legal proof that the appellants had committed the offence, this Court has no option but to give benefit of doubt to the appellants”, the Bench noted.
“…In the present matter, there is no evidence of presence of any injury on the hands of any of the appellants. The medical evidence in the present case has created a gross, irreconcilable contradiction that renders the eye witness account wholly improbable or impossible insofar as the cause of death of the victim is concerned. The statement of the eye witnesses, therefore, cannot be blindly accepted to sustain conviction of the appellants”, it further noted.
The criminal appeal was allowed, and the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated August 4, 2023, and August 7, 2023, were set aside and quashed. The Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, provided they are not required in any other case.
Cause Title: Tngen Muruh & Ors. v. The State of Meghalaya (Crl.A. No.33 of 2023)
Appearances:
Appellants: S. Chakrawarty, Senior Advocate with E. Laloo, Advocate.
Respondent: R. Gurung, GA.