Summary
The Court acquitted the two surviving appellants of murder because the prosecution had not reliably proved the genesis, manner or perpetrators of the killing. Inconsistent eyewitness accounts, uncertainty about the source of names in a delayed FIR, the unexplained location of the body and inconclusive recoveries left a reasonable possibility of a different mob assault.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness evidence and recoveries proved the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- How the unexplained delayed FIR and inconsistencies affected the prosecution account.
Held
- An unexplained delayed FIR calls for careful scrutiny to exclude deliberation and embellishment, especially for a nighttime occurrence in a public place. Here the informant denied receiving an eyewitness account, undermining the purported source of the named allegations. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Neither material witness supplied a sufficiently reliable account to sustain conviction. Their inconsistencies and conduct, the absence of an explanation for the body being found about 300 feet away, and the unexplained stick beside it left material gaps in the prosecution narrative. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The prosecution evidence left a strong probability of mob action concerning an alleged incident involving a woman. It did not convincingly establish who committed the murder or how; the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 14, 24)
- The seized sticks and clothes were not a clinching circumstance in this case: the accused denied the alleged discoveries, the serologist could not identify the blood’s origin, and a separate unexplained stick lay beside the body. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeals allowed. Trial and High Court judgments set aside; appellants acquitted. Bail bonds discharged and no surrender required; if detained, release forthwith unless wanted in another case.