Summary
The appellant received the benefit of doubt where identification during a night shooting lacked evidence of adequate light, eyewitness accounts conflicted over who fired, and the medical and recovery evidence did not reliably attribute the fatal injuries to him. Motive did not cure those defects. The Court intervened despite concurrent convictions because the material had not been properly appreciated, and set aside the murder, attempted-murder and Arms Act convictions.
Issues
- Whether the evidence proved the appellant’s participation beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the defects warranted interference with concurrent factual findings.
Held
- No adequate evidence established electric light or moonlight at the agricultural-field scene. Identification and attribution of the overt act at 9 p.m. were therefore doubtful in these circumstances. (¶ 10)
- The complaint attributed firing to two accused, while the complainant’s trial account attributed all three shots to the co-accused. Medical evidence did not identify which weapon caused the fatal injuries, undermining attribution to this appellant. (¶ 11–13)
- Police testimony is not inherently infirm. Nevertheless, the use of two alleged weapons and hostile recovery witnesses required corroboration of recovery from other sources on these facts. (¶ 14)
- Non-recovery of the fatal bullet was not by itself fatal. Since other material doubts sufficed, the Court did not decide the separate challenge to the ballistic opinion. (¶ 15)
- Motive only added weight to reliable eyewitness evidence and was double-edged. The combined identification and attribution defects left guilt unproved; the concurrent findings reflected erroneous appreciation warranting Article 136 intervention. (¶¶ 9, 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed. Appellant’s convictions under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act set aside. Immediate release directed unless required in another case.