Page 1 of 16

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

2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 2 of 16

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. 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 3 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 4 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 5 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 6 of 16

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- 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 7 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 8 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 9 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 10 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 11 of 16

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. 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 12 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 13 of 16

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 3x2 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. 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 14 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 15 of 16

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 2026:MLHC:413-DB

Page 16 of 16

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” 2026:MLHC:413-DB