Summary
Appellants convicted of murder and rioting challenged the reliability of the principal eyewitnesses and last-seen witnesses. Although accounts of the attack appeared identical, material contradictions in surrounding events, deficient investigation and non-examination of crucial witnesses created reasonable doubt. The Court reversed the concurrent convictions and acquitted the accused.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness and last-seen accounts, considered with the attending circumstances and investigation, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held
- Witness evidence must be assessed as a whole. The identical attack narrative did not overcome substantial contradictions about disclosure to villagers, learning of the death, recording the FIR and police attendance. The accounts failed scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Omission of the precise viewing distance from a police statement was not material, but later introduction of an alleged voting-related demand was an important improvement. The manner of preparing the site plan also raised concerns about fairness of investigation. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- Last-seen witnesses differed about timing, enticement and the source of their information; the purported source turned hostile. Their evidence and the account of discovering the body could not reliably fill the gaps in the prosecution case. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Crucial villagers, the head constable and senior police officer were not examined. Recording the FIR after a site visit and consultation left room for a constructed account in the overall circumstances. Enmity could support either motive or false implication; the material contradictions required benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; convictions by the trial court and High Court set aside. The accused were acquitted and their bail bonds discharged.