“Not a Faulty Investigation but No Investigation”: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Bihar Murder Case

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has acquitted the appellants in a daylight shooting case from Bihar, setting aside their convictions under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. It found that no weapons or cartridges were recovered or searched for, the medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness account, the motive was not proved, and the eyewitnesses were related to or close to the deceased, with no independent witness examined.

The deceased was shot in the back in broad daylight, apparently on an election day, while going to his fields with a son, an employee, a relative and a villager. The prosecution alleged an ambush and indiscriminate firing; the victim was declared dead in hospital. Nine prosecution witnesses were examined.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, with some also convicted under Section 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and others under Section 147 IPC; the High Court affirmed. One accused had already completed his sentence and been released on remission.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can convictions for murder rest on the testimony of related eyewitnesses when the investigation is virtually absent and the medical evidence contradicts their account?

When the Evidence Does Not Add Up

The Court was willing to overlook ordinary inconsistencies among witnesses, since accounts of an ambush are often disordered. But no cartridges or weapons were recovered or even searched for, blood-stained earth was not sent for chemical analysis, and the inquest preceded the recording of the First Information Statement. It said the case was “not of a faulty investigation but of no investigation having been carried out”.

The medical evidence showed that the deceased was shot from the back at close range while seated, contradicting the version that he was walking with the attackers behind him. The motive, based on an alleged elopement and a political rivalry, was doubtful and unproved. The eyewitnesses were close to the deceased and had a running dispute with the accused, their presence was doubtful, and no independent witness was examined. The High Court also erred in relying on a complaint against the investigating officer that was not produced at trial.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeals were allowed and the appellants acquitted.
• Any appellant in custody is to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
• Bail bonds of appellants on bail stand cancelled.
• The High Court erred in relying on material not produced at trial.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It shows how a near-total absence of investigation can make related eyewitness testimony unsafe.
• It underlines the weight of medical evidence that contradicts the ocular account.
• It reminds courts not to rely on material outside the trial record.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Map the medical evidence against the eyewitness version of positions and distance.
• Highlight missing recoveries, unsent samples and the sequence of inquest and FIR.

For Prosecutors

• Ensure recoveries, scene samples and forensic analysis in firearm cases.
• Examine independent witnesses where available.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It recorded that a faulty investigation cannot by itself benefit the accused, but found this was a case of no investigation and no reliable evidence.

They were related or close to the deceased, had a dispute with the accused, their presence was doubtful, and their account conflicted with the medical evidence.

It is marked non-reportable.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →