Summary
Two appellants challenged convictions arising from a fatal armed assault. The Court found fundamental contradictions and improvements in the two principal witnesses’ accounts, coupled with inconsistencies against the medical evidence, casting grave doubt on their presence. In that context, failure to examine another allegedly nearby witness assumed significance. The appellants received the benefit of doubt, their convictions were set aside and release was ordered unless required in another case.
Issues
- Whether contradictions in the principal eyewitness accounts and their relationship to the medical evidence created reasonable doubt about the appellants’ guilt.
Held
- The informant initially attributed firing at the deceased to all pistol-bearing accused but later stated that Subhash and another accused fired in the air. This was a material improvement affecting the role alleged against the appellant. (¶ 14-15)
- The other principal witness could not identify whose shot hit the deceased or specify the injuries caused by the alleged knife and farsa attacks. The evidence concerning firing and the two alleged neck assaults was materially inconsistent with the medical findings on this record. (¶ 16-17)
- The contradictions went to the root of the prosecution case and cast grave doubt on both witnesses’ presence. They could not be dismissed as minor discrepancies. Although every alleged witness need not be examined, non-examination of the deceased’s father, allegedly nearby, mattered in these circumstances. (¶ 18)
- Subhash and Gyanvati were entitled to benefit of doubt. Their appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment set aside as against them, and they were acquitted and ordered released unless wanted in another case. (¶ 19-20)
Result
Both appeals allowed. Appellants Subhash and Gyanvati acquitted on benefit of doubt and ordered released unless required in another case.