Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal in a murder case. The prosecution depended on a non-eyewitness complainant and two alleged eyewitnesses whose presence, conduct and contradictory accounts did not inspire confidence. The explanation for the widow’s delayed statement lacked supporting medical or documentary evidence, and the alleged conspiracy evidence was also unreliable. The High Court properly extended benefit of doubt; no manifest error warranted interference.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution witnesses reliably established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal warranted interference under Article 136.
Held
- The complainant had not witnessed the occurrence and depended on information from an alleged eyewitness. His own contradictory accounts, the prior enmity and the weaknesses in that alleged eyewitness’s evidence undermined the prosecution narrative when considered together. Credibility and trustworthiness had to be established before the testimony could inspire confidence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The alleged eyewitness gave materially differing accounts, failed satisfactorily to explain his presence and behaved in ways the Court found suspicious in the circumstances. The widow’s claimed month-long unconsciousness, used to explain delayed reporting, lacked medical or documentary support. These were specific evidentiary findings, rather than a rule that every witness must report personally or behave identically after a crime. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The conspiracy witness’s failure to warn the victim despite allegedly overhearing the plan, along with non-examination of the accompanying person, further weakened that part of the case. The High Court committed no illegality or manifest error in finding the central witnesses unreliable and granting benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
State appeal dismissed; High Court acquittal of the three respondents maintained.