Summary
The appellants were acquitted because their convictions rested on a doubtful solitary eyewitness account in a night-time mob assault. A conviction can rest on one witness if the evidence is reliable, cogent and convincing, but requires heightened scrutiny. Here, material departures from the FIR, medical evidence indicating participation beyond the two appellants, errors concerning another witness’s presence and the acquittal of similarly situated accused made reliance unsafe.
Issues
- Whether the doubtful sole eyewitness account safely supported the appellants’ convictions for the fatal assault.
Held
- A solitary eyewitness can sustain a conviction where the testimony is reliable, cogent and convincing in light of surrounding circumstances. Its solitary character calls for heightened scrutiny; the account here was not sufficiently reliable. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- The High Court treated the complainant’s husband as an eyewitness despite the trial court having disbelieved his presence. The remaining witness’s general FIR allegations became specific at trial, while her account had already been substantially doubted in acquitting others. (¶ 6–8)
- The eleven injuries, including an incised wound not attributable to the appellants’ lathis, indicated a mob assault. The appellants were not shown to stand differently from an acquitted co-accused also said to have used a lathi. (¶¶ 6, 9)
- The cumulative evidentiary weaknesses, prior animosity and risk of false implication made it unsafe to uphold the convictions on this witness’s account. (¶ 8–12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and appellants acquitted. Immediate release directed unless required in another case; bail bonds, if applicable, discharged.