Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted four appellants convicted of murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The sole eyewitness’s evidence concerning them contained material contradictions, omissions and improvements, and her police statement could not supply substantive proof omitted from her testimony. Their case differed from the principal assailant’s, against whom her evidence was consistent and an axe was recovered. The appellants received the benefit of doubt.
Issues
- Whether the sole eyewitness’s evidence safely established guilt of these appellants.
- Whether the police statement or the principal assailant’s upheld conviction justified their convictions.
Held
- A conviction may rest on a sole witness, provided the testimony is trustworthy and reliable. The evidence concerning the particular accused must be assessed for material contradictions, omissions and improvements. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Material changes concerned identification in darkness, the claimed light source, the appellants’ alleged acts and their escape. No recovered torch or supporting independent testimony resolved those concerns; on the cumulative circumstances it was unsafe to convict these appellants. (¶¶ 14.1, 14.2, 15)
- The High Court improperly used the Section 161 police statement as proof that the appellants carried lathis, although that assertion was absent from the witness’s court testimony. Such a statement is not substantive evidence of guilt and could not fill that evidentiary gap. (¶ 14.1)
- The principal assailant’s upheld conviction did not determine the appellants’ cases. The eyewitness was consistent concerning him and the axe was recovered at his instance, distinguishing his position from the four appellants. (¶¶ 14.3, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellants’ convictions under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC set aside and they were acquitted of the charges tried. Immediate release directed unless required in another case.