Summary
Convictions for murder and attempted murder could not rest on the two principal witnesses’ wholly unreliable accounts, undermined by material contradictions, improvements, medical-record inconsistencies and lack of corroborative linkage. The asserted business-jealousy motive was unsupported, and no weapon was recovered at the appellant’s instance. Applying the quality-of-evidence principle, the Court gave benefit of doubt, set aside both judgments and acquitted the appellant, discharging his bail bonds without surrender.
Issues
- Whether the principal witnesses’ evidence was sufficiently reliable to sustain the concurrent convictions.
- Whether motive and other evidence supplied reliable corroboration.
- What relief followed the prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions for murder and attempted murder were set aside because the principal accounts were wholly unreliable and no other tangible evidence connected the appellant to the crimes. (¶¶ 1, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32)
Held
- Evidence is assessed by quality rather than quantity. A wholly reliable single witness can suffice; testimony of intermediate reliability calls for material corroboration. On the whole record, the Court placed both principal witnesses in the wholly unreliable category. (¶¶ 26, 27, 31)
- Their accounts contained material changes concerning the second assailant, inconsistent earlier petitions and statements, implausible narrative features and contradictions about taking the victims to hospitals. Missing hospital records and the examining doctor’s admissions further undermined those accounts. The conclusion rested on these particular infirmities, not kinship alone. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The business-jealousy motive lacked supporting investigation material and was vague and far-fetched on this record. The spade was found at the scene and no crime weapon was recovered at the appellant’s instance; no other tangible evidence supplied the missing reliable connection. These were deficiencies in this case, not universal requirements for proving every murder. (¶¶ 16, 27, 28, 29, 31)
- Benefit of doubt required acquittal. The trial and High Court judgments were set aside as to the appellant, who was already on suspended sentence and bail; he need not surrender and his bonds stood discharged. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal allowed; murder and attempted-murder convictions set aside and appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt. Bail bonds discharged; surrender unnecessary.