Summary
Two men were convicted of a 1985 murder on the testimony of the deceased's son and a passer-by from another village. Both the trial court and the Allahabad High Court accepted it. The Supreme Court acquitted them on benefit of doubt. The son had a decade-long enmity with the accused, and the passer-by was an unexplained chance witness whose statement was recorded 24 days later. Three named independent eyewitnesses and the scribe of the FIR were not examined. No weapon was seized, the bullet recovery conflicted with the medical evidence, and the investigating officer was never examined. On these facts, those gaps created reasonable doubt.
Issues
- Whether the conviction for murder could rest on the testimony of an inimical related witness and a chance witness, uncorroborated by named independent eyewitnesses, where the investigating officer was not examined and no weapons were seized.
Provisions considered
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Evidence is weighed, not counted, and a single reliable witness may suffice; but testimony neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable requires corroboration in material particulars as a rule of prudence. (¶¶ 28, 34)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The charge of murder against the appellants was held not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 4, 43)
Held
- A defective investigation is not always fatal and non-examination of the investigating officer matters only if it causes prejudice; but here PW-2 had a ten-year enmity with the accused that made false implication possible, PW-3's reason for being at the spot was unexplained, his statement was recorded 24 days later and he attributed no specific role to one appellant, so their evidence was not of unimpeachable quality. (¶¶ 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38)
- The prosecution's failure to examine three eyewitnesses it named and the doctor said to have written the FIR invites the inference that they would not have supported it; the investigating officer, away on training, was a vital witness whose absence left the delay and the failure to seize weapons unexplained; and the claimed recovery of a bullet from an exit wound was improbable and the bullet was not exhibited. (¶¶ 35, 36, 39, 40, 41)
- Evaluating the evidence apart from the investigative lapses, the courts below were swayed by the ocular testimony without considering the attending circumstances, and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 42, 43)
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos. 490 and 491 of 2017 allowed without costs; conviction and life sentence imposed on 29.01.1986 in S.T. No. 499 of 1985 and the Allahabad High Court judgment dated 09.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1986 set aside; appellants to be set free if not wanted in any other case.