Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Tngen Muruh vs The State Of Meghalaya on 29 April, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:413-DB
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Date of Hearing: 25.03.2026
Crl.A. No.33 of 2023 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026
1. Shri. Tngen Muruh,
Son of U Kiang Suting,
Village Lumkhudung
P.O Thadlaskein
P.S. Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District
Meghalaya.
2. Shri Tne Muruh
Son of U Kiang Suting,
Village Lumkhudung
P.O Thadlaskein
P.S. Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District
Meghalaya.
3. Shri She Muruh
Son of U Kiang Suting,
Village Lumkhudung
P.O Thadlaskein
P.S. Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District
Meghalaya.
.....Appellants
-VERSUS-
The State of Meghalaya,
Through the Public Prosecutor,
The High Court of Meghalaya,
At Shillong.
.....Respondent
Page 1 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr.Adv with
Mr. E. Laloo, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA
Judgment and Order
Per. B. Bhattacharjee, Judge:
1. This instant appeal, filed by three appellants, has arisen out of the
Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2023 and the Order of Sentence dated
07.08.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai in
Sessions Case No.99 of 2015 whereby all the appellants were convicted u/s
302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment.
2. The fact of the case is that an FIR dated 16.11.1991 was lodged by
PW-3 alleging that five persons from Lumkhudung village namely, (i) Shri.
Tngen Muruh(Appellant No.1), (ii) Shri. Lowit Muruh, (iii) Shri. She
Muruh(Appellant No.3), (iv) Shri. Tne Muruh(Appellant No.2) and (v) Shri.
Kamai Muruh, murdered one Shri. Sada Muruh on 16.11.1991 at around 4
PM at Lumkhudung village. It was further alleged that Shri. Dal Ryngkhlem
and the father of deceased Sada Muruh, who witnessed the assault and
murder, were also assaulted by those accused persons. The FIR was lodged
before the Officer-in-Charge of Ummulong Beat House and was received
and forwarded to Jowai Police Station on 18.11.1991, whereupon, it was
registered as Jowai P.S. Case No.166 (9) 1991 u/s 302/34 IPC. The case
was, thereafter, taken up for investigation by SI Q.E. Pala.
Page 2 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet being Charge-
sheet No.97/1994 dated 14.05.1994 u/s 302/34 IPC was filed against all the
above named five accused persons before the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Jowai. On 22.05.1995, charge was framed against all the
accused persons including the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. It appears that PW-1 was examined on 06.08.2001 before the
Additional Deputy Commissioner after more than six years of framing of the
charge. Thereafter, evidence of PW-2 was recorded on 03.02.2022 by the
Sessions Court, after more than twenty years of taking of evidence of PW-1.
The reason for such inordinate and shocking delay primarily appears to be
due to the non-appearance of the accused persons and transfer of the matter
firstly, to the Fast Track Court, and after separation of judiciary from
executive in the district of West Jaintia Hills, to the Court of Sessions Judge,
Jowai. The prosecution examined 4 (four) witnesses and exhibited 2 (two)
documents in support of its case. After the closure of the prosecution
witnesses, statements of all the 3 appellants were recorded on 22.06.2023 u/s
313 CrPC. The appellants declined to adduce any defence witness and the
matter was then taken up for final hearing.
4. It appears from the chargesheet that as many as 10 (ten) witnesses
were originally listed as prosecution witnesses. However, only 4 (four)
prosecution witnesses were examined during the course of the trial. Record
reveals that statements of 3 (three) other witnesses were recorded to bring on
record the fact of demise of 3 (three) prosecution witnesses namely, Yooka
(Iooka) Muruh, Nihon Suting and Dal Ryngkhlem. The deposition of the
investigating officer of the case was also not recorded during the course of
the trial.
5. The trial court record reveals that the accused Shri. Kamai Muruh
passed away on 11.08.2018 and the accused Shri. Lowit Muruh passed away
sometime in the year 2018 leaving behind the three appellants herein to face
the trial. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties, by Judgment and
Page 3 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
Order dated 04.08.2023 convicted all the appellants u/s 302 IPC and by
Order dated 07.08.2023 sentenced the them to undergo life imprisonment.
Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal
challenging their conviction and sentence.
6. Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. E. Laloo,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that though PW-1 and
PW-3 claimed to be eye-witnesses to the commission of the alleged crime,
none of their names have been mentioned in the FIR as eye-witnesses. In
fact, the FIR contained names of some other persons as eye-witnesses who
were never examined at the trial. That apart, he submits that the versions of
PW-1 and PW-3 are at total variance as to whether the victim was dragged
or chased by the appellants to the alleged place of occurrence. He submits
that the above factors indicate that none of the witnesses have disclosed the
truth in their evidence and hence, conviction of the appellants on the basis of
their testimony is not tenable in law.
7. The learned Senior counsel further submits that both the inquest report
and the post-mortem report clearly reveal that the injuries to the skull of the
victim were caused by a sharp instrument but there is nothing in the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 that the appellants were carrying or have used
any sharp weapon while allegedly assaulting the victim. He contends that the
fact of non-recovery of any weapon from the alleged place of occurrence or
from the possession of the appellants would go to show that the accused
persons did not cause any injury which led to the death of the victim. The
learned Senior counsel further submits that the inquest and the post-mortem
conducted on 18.11.1991, after two days of alleged death of the victim on
16.11.1991, did not indicate any time of death of the victim and hence, the
appellants cannot be held responsible for the death of the victim as the
possibility of commission of the crime by other persons cannot be ruled out.
He submits that the evidence on record reveals that the FIR was received and
Page 4 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
registered by the police on 18.11.1991 after two days of the alleged incident,
but the delay has not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses.
8. In addition to the above, the learned Senior counsel submits that the
entire evidence on record do not project presence of any probable motive on
the part of the appellants to commit the alleged crime. He submits that
absence of motive coupled with unclear and contradictory evidence of the
so-called eye-witnesses casts a serious doubt over the entire prosecution
case. He contends that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 with regard to the
assault and death of the victim does not find any support from the evidence
of the medical witness and in such a situation, prays that the conviction and
sentence of the appellants may be set aside and quashed. In support of his
submission on the point of inconsistency of prosecution evidence with
medical evidence, the learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the
decisions of the Apex Court in Ram Narain v. The State of Punjab (AIR
1975 SC 1727), Kartarey and ors. V. State of U.P (AIR 1976 SC 76) and
Ishwar Singh v. The State of U.P (AIR 1976 SC 2423).
9. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA, on the other hand, submits that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt through direct,
cogent and corroborated evidence. He submits that PW-1 and PW-3, who are
eye-witnesses to the occurrence, in their deposition have clearly stated that
the accused persons including the three appellants herein have assaulted the
victim till he died on the spot. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 corroborated
each other and is further supported by evidence of PW-4, the Doctor, who
conducted post-mortem on the dead body. He submits that the evidence of
prosecution witnesses stood unshaken in the cross-examination conducted
on behalf of the appellants. According to the learned GA, the prosecution
case is supported by credible and reliable eyewitness testimony and as such,
the absence of a proven means rea in the case has no significance. The
learned GA submits that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 cannot be
disbelieved or discarded merely on the ground that they are related to each
Page 5 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
other and to the deceased as sister and brother. He submits that there is no
proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as unreliable witnesses. In
support of his contention, the learned GA places reliance on the decisions of
Harbans Kaur & anr v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 195 and Yogesh
Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & ors (2017) 11 SCC 195. In addition, the learned
GA submits that no motive to falsely implicate the appellants has been
suggested by the defence, and, hence, there should not be any hesitation in
accepting the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 to support the conviction of the
appellants.
10. The learned GA further submits that non-examination of a witness
named in the FIR cannot be a ground for discarding the prosecution case. He
submits that there is no law which mandates that the names of all the
witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses, should be stated in the FIR. He
contends that even non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot
be a ground for rejecting the prosecution case if other available evidence is
sufficient and trustworthy. By referring to Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, the learned GA submits that it is the merit of the
statement of a particular witness and not the number of witnesses which
matters in establishing a criminal case. He contends that in the instant
matter, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 read together with testimony of
PW-4 makes out a clear case in favour of the prosecution and hence, there is
no infirmity or illegality in the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
The decisions of State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 and Rizwan
Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 are pressed into service in
support of the above contention.
11. The learned GA also contends that the appellants were confronted
with specific incriminating evidence in their respective statements recorded
u/s 313 CrPC, but none of them offered any explanation. They simply
responded by flat denial and did not avail the opportunity to explain their
version of the incident. He, therefore, submits that the evidence of the eye-
Page 6 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
witnesses which supports the case of the prosecution can be safely used
against the appellants for rendering conviction. To buttress his argument, the
learned GA places reliance on the decision of Ramnaresh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257. He submits that the evidence on record is
sufficient to establish that the appellants acted in concert and caused injuries
on vital parts of the deceased with intention/knowledge that they were likely
to cause death. He, thus, submits that the trial court was right in convicting
the appellants u/s 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for
life. He submits that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. Also
perused the materials available on record.
13. PW-1 in her deposition stated that the deceased, Sada Muruh, was her
younger brother who died on 16.11.1991. He was murdered by all the
accused persons and she saw the occurrence herself which took place around
6:30 PM to 7:00 PM on the day of incident at the paddy field belonging to
her mother Ka Kwen Muruh at Lum Khudung. Immediately after the
incident she asked the accused persons as to why they killed her younger
brother who was not mentally sound and why they did not inform her and
her family before killing him, to which the accused person replied that they
had already informed her family members which fact was not true. She
stated that she did not know the reason why they killed her younger brother.
In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she reached home on
16.11.1991 at about 6:00 PM. On reaching home, she took her meal and got
ready for bed. At that point of time the accused persons came and dragged
her younger brother (Sada Muruh) to the paddy field of her mother in
presence of her other brother (PW-3), mother and father. The time when the
accused persons dragged her younger brother, it was around 7:00 PM. They
did nothing to follow the accused persons but asked them not to beat Sada
Muruh. She stated that the distance of the paddy field from home was about
Page 7 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
100 meters and during the dragging process, the accused persons also
manhandled her other brother and assaulted her father. She stated that they
did not inform the headman at that point of time but made hue and cry to
which none came to the rescue. PW-1 further stated that the deceased Sada
Muruh was left in the paddy field from 16.11.1991 till 18.11.1991 as in
‘Niamtre’, her religious practice, it was not permissible to carry home the
body of a person in case of an unnatural death. She admitted that her brother
U Kaia Muruh (PW-3) reported the matter to the headman of Lum Khudung
on 18.11.1991 and thereafter, a complaint was lodged with the police. She
did not know who first attacked the deceased. She stated that in her
statement before the police, she mentioned that the incident took place at
4:00 PM, however, mention of timing of occurrence before the court is
correct. She admitted that she never stated before the police that the accused
persons dragged the deceased from their residence on the date of occurrence
and that her other brother and father was assaulted and manhandled by the
accused persons. She stated that her deceased brother was a lunatic, needed
hospitalisation and was in mental jail, Shillong. She was not present on
18.11.1991 when the police came to enquire about the incident. She was at
home on 16.11.1991 at 6:30 PM and went to report the matter to the police
on 17.11.1991. The deceased was not taken to hospital for post-mortem.
14. PW-2 in his deposition stated that in the year 1991, he was posted at
the Ummulong Beat House as the In-charge. The case was investigated by SI
Q.E. Pala and on his transfer, PW-2 was directed by the then SP Jowai, to
file charge-sheet in the case. He did not know the accused persons in the
case.
15. PW-3 in his evidence before the court stated that the deceased was his
brother. He did not remember the date, month and year of the incident. On
the day of the incident, he was at home with his parents and his deceased
brother. At around 6:00 PM, one Shri. Dal Ryngkhlem, visited his house and
left after sometime. Thereafter, his deceased brother went out of the house
Page 8 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
and he saw five persons chasing his brother and caught him at the paddy
field and started assaulting him. On seeing his brother being assaulted, he
along with his parents rushed to the paddy field to stop those five persons
but they continued assaulting till his brother died on the spot. He named all
the five persons which included the names of the appellants herein. He stated
that all the accused persons were his cousin brothers. After assaulting his
brother, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. He
along with his elder sister went to Ummulong Beat House to report the
matter to the police and he signed the FIR after being typed. He exhibited
the FIR as Exhibit-1. He stated that the dead body was guarded till the
arrival of the police after two days of the incident. Police did some enquiry
at the place of occurrence.
In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he informed the police at about
8:00 PM. He stated that his statement before the police that he was informed
by somebody about the incident is not correct. He stated that he and his
family members just stood at the place of occurrence requesting the accused
persons not to assault the deceased as they all were scared. At the place of
occurrence, it was only he, his father, mother and two sisters namely, Iong
Muruh and Dina Muruh, were present. The dead body was lying at the place
of occurrence for two days from the date of incident. He affirmed that all the
five accused persons together assaulted his victim brother.
16. PW-4, the doctor, in his testimony stated that he conducted the post
mortem examination of the dead body of victim Sada Muruh, aged 23years,
on 18.11.1991 at 2:00 PM at the spot/place of occurrence after receiving a
requisition from the police. After examination of the dead body, he found
that i) The head was broken, the membrane ruptured, ii) Lacerated injury on
the chin and the chin was broken, iii) Lower lips disfigured, iv) Incised
wound on the left supra temporal region measuring 3 x 2 cms and v) Upper
jaw and teeth broken. According to his opinion, the cause of death was due
Page 9 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
to haemorrhage resulting from the above injuries. He exhibited the post
mortem report prepared by him as Exhibit-2.
The cross-examination of PW-4 was declined by the defence.
17. Before proceeding further with an analysis of the prosecution
evidence and materials on record, it would be appropriate to take note of the
various authorities cited by both the parties in support of their respective
contentions.
18. In Ram Narayan (supra) at para 14, it was held by the Apex Court that
where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the
evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it
would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the
evidence of the witness for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the
medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, this is a most
fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained
it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. It was further held that in a case
where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has
always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert
evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been
caused with a weapon with which and in the manner in which they are
alleged to have been caused.
19. In Kartarey and others (supra) and Ishwar Singh (supra), the Apex
Court held that it is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the court, to
see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the
medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the
injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so
may sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice.
20. In Harbans Kaur (supra), it was held that there is no proposition in
law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary,
reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the
witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the
Page 10 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
accused. Further, in Yogesh Singh (supra), the Apex Court after survey of
various judicial pronouncements, observed that the evidence of a closely
related witness is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
any conclusion is made to rest upon it regarding the convict/accused in a
given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground
that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.
21. The Apex Court in Mansingh (supra) held that evidence of the person
whose name did not figure in the FIR as a witness does not perforce become
suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses,
more particularly eye-witnesses, should be indicated in the FIR. Mere non-
mention of the name of an eye-witness does not render the prosecution
version fragile. Further, in Rizwan Khan (supra), it was held that the
testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-
corroboration by independent witness. Examination of independent witness
is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.
22. In Ramnaresh (supra), the Apex Court held that the obligation to put
material evidence to the accused u/s 313 CrPC is upon the Court. One of the
main objects of recording of a statement under this provision is to give an
opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against
him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once
he does not avail this opportunity, then consequence in law must follow.
Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made
u/s 313 CrPC, insofar as it supports the case of prosecution can be used
against him for rendering conviction even under the latter, he faces the
consequence of law.
23. Keeping in mind the aforesaid propositions of law relied on by the
parties, we shall now proceed to analyse the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and also the materials on record.
Page 11 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
24. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 makes it clear that no
weapon was used in the commission of the crime as none of them made any
statement that the accused persons assaulted the victim with any instrument
or weapon. PW-3 stated that the accused persons continued assaulting till the
victim died on the spot, but he did not explicitly tell as to what kind of injury
was caused to the victim which resulted in death. None of the eye-witnesses
stated as to how they came to the conclusion that the victim died on the spot
after being assaulted by the accused persons as there is nothing in their
evidence to show that they undertook pulse test or checked breathing of the
victim before coming to such conclusion. PW-1 and PW-3 did not say that
they saw the victim was bleeding because of the injuries inflicted on him by
the accused persons. Therefore, it remains unclear as to what type of injuries
were caused to the victim by the assault of the accused persons.
25. PW-3 also stated that after assaulting the victim all the accused
persons fled away from the place of occurrence and he along with his elder
sister went to Ummulong Beat House to report the matter to the police and
thereafter, signed the FIR after it was typed. In his cross-examination he
confirmed that he informed the police about the incident at about 8:00 PM.
The date mentioned in the FIR is 16.11.1991. However, there is nothing on
record to show that the investigation of the case was taken up immediately
thereafter. On the contrary, the endorsement made on the FIR and the
registration of the case by the police makes it clear that the FIR was received
on 18.11.1991 i.e. two days after the incident. The evidence of PW-1 reveals
that the police arrived at the place of occurrence only on 18.11.1991 to
enquire about the death of the victim. It is, thus, certain that no investigation
was taken up in the matter before 18.11.1991.
26. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 further reveal that the dead body of
the victim was left in the place of occurrence from 16.11.1991 to 18.11.1991
because of the religious practice followed by the victim’s family (known as
Niamtre) which does not permit the dead body to be carried home in case of
Page 12 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
an unnatural death. PW-3 in his evidence stated that the dead body was
guarded till the arrival of the police after two days of the incident. There is
nothing in evidence to show that the headman or any other village authorities
was informed immediately after the incident. There is also no details
available as to who guarded the dead body at the place of occurrence till the
police arrived at the spot.
27. The evidence of PW-4, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the dead body indicates presence of serious injuries.
According to him, the victim’s head was broken with membrane ruptured,
lacerated injury on the chin and the chin was broken, lower lips disfigured,
incised wound on the left supra temporal region measuring 3×2 cms, upper
jaw and six teeth broken. He opined that the death was caused due to
haemorrhage resulting from the above injuries. Although PW-4 had given
details of the injuries, his evidence and the post-mortem report is totally
silent about the approximate time of death of the victim. There is no clarity
as to whether the victim died on 16.11.1991 or on 17.11.1991 or on
18.11.1991. The medical evidence adduced in the matter does not in any
manner indicate whether injuries sustained by the victim could have caused
by bare hand or not. In absence of any such clarification, it is not possible to
comprehend that the death of the victim resulted from the assault caused by
the accused persons.
28. In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy to this Court that, despite
the disclosure of multiple serious external injuries on the body of the
deceased, there is no evidence on record indicating any corresponding signs
of bleeding. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not throw any
light as to whether the injuries received by the victim could have been
inflicted without causing any bleeding. Furthermore, there is an absence of
material on record to establish that such injuries could have been inflicted by
the use of bare hands.
Page 13 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
29. There is no clarity as to whether the FIR was filed on 16.11.1991 as
stated by PW-3 as the endorsement made on the FIR indicates that it was
received on 18.11.1991 by the police. If the claim of PW-3 is correct, then a
question would arise why police visited the place of occurrence only on
18.11.1991, after a gap of two days. The prosecution also has not made any
attempt to disclose what happened during the intervening period starting
from the time of occurrence on 16.11.1991 till the arrival of the police to the
place of occurrence on 18.11.1991. There are no details available as to
which manner the dead body was lying on the spot and who were the
persons guarding the dead body. The learned Senior counsel for the
appellants pointed out that an inquest report was prepared by the police
during the course of investigation, however, there appears that no such
report was ever exhibited before the trial court. Moreover, the testimony of
PW-4 indicates that he conducted post-mortem examination of the dead
body in the place of occurrence, but the post-mortem report and the evidence
do not reveal any detail about the place of occurrence. The medical evidence
does not disclose that the dead body was found lying in a pool of blood or
there was bloodstain on the clothes of the victim. There is also no indication
that there was any sign of bloodstains in and around the place of occurrence
All the above factors cause a serious doubt over the prosecution case.
30. According to the FIR, the incident took place on 16.11.1991 at about
4:00 PM. As per the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the time of incident was
6:30-7:00 PM on the said date. The eye-witnesses claim of ‘death of the
victim on the spot’ forms the core part of the prosecution case. However,
medical evidence does not support any such claim as the time of death has
nowhere been mentioned. 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. There is also no assertion by the prosecution that the
Page 14 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
appellants used any weapon or object to cause fatal injury to the victim.
Incised wound indicated in the post mortem report could not have been
caused without use of any sharp object. 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. 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.
31. In a case of present nature where prosecution allegation is that the
victim died on the spot because of the assault by the accused persons, a duty
is cast on the prosecution to prove the time of death of the victim in order to
relate it with the offence alleged. It is also incumbent upon the prosecution
to establish the manner in which the injuries on the victim could have been
caused, whether by use of any weapon or not. When eye witness account is
silent with regard to the injuries, the same has to be proved by inviting
opinion of medical witness. In the present case, it is impossible to say with
certainty that the injuries were caused by the assault of the appellants.
Hence, the conviction of the appellants u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained.
32. We have also perused the statements of the appellants recorded u/s
313 CrPC by the trial court. Although the appellants have not offered any
detailed explanation except issuing a flat denial to the circumstances put
forward before them, there is no self-incriminating statement made by them
to lend support to the prosecution case.
33. The authorities cited by the learned GA do not help the prosecution in
the present appeal. The version of the eyewitnesses is not sufficient to bring
home a charge of murder against the appellants. The discussions made in the
Page 15 of 16
2026:MLHC:413-DB
foregoing paragraph has no bearing with the propositions of law sought to be
relied on by the learned GA.
34. 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, non-
recovery 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.
35. Resultantly, this criminal appeal succeeds. The impugned Judgment
and Order dated 04.08.2023 and the Order of Sentence dated 07.08.2023
passed by the Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills, Jowai in Sessions Case
No.99 of 2015 is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellants are set at
liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
36. This criminal appeal stands allowed.
37. Let an authenticated copy of this judgment and order be furnished to
the respective parties immediately.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
JUDGE JUDGE
Meghalaya
29.04.2026
"Shrity,PS"
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SHRITY
CH MOMIN
Date: 2026.04.29 18:17:50 IST
Page 16 of 16
