Summary
The Court acquitted the appellant of murder because the prosecution evidence was unreliable and left a plausible accidental explanation unexcluded. No witness saw the assault, the principal witness materially contradicted the FIR, and the medical testimony did not support the recovered weapon causing the injury. Possible false implication, absent motive and unexplained reporting delay reinforced the doubt.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial and testimonial evidence established the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions and the defence’s accidental-injury explanation.
Held
- None of the witnesses had seen the assault. The principal witness’s trial account differed materially from the FIR about whether the appellant escaped on a cycle carrying the weapon or whether the weapon lay at the scene. The deceased was already unconscious when that witness arrived, and the surrounding account did not inspire confidence. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- The absence of proved motive mattered in this circumstantial case, particularly when family witnesses spoke of no enmity. Cross-examination also brought out the village sarpanch’s grievance against the appellant and his participation after the incident, supporting a possibility of false implication. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- The doctor’s evidence did not support the recovered weapon having caused the injury and allowed an accidental injury. Evidence of alcohol consumption and the discrepancies made the defence suggestion of a fall onto a sharp object reasonably possible; the FIR delay was also unsatisfactorily explained. (¶¶ 19, 34, 35)
- On the evidence as a whole, the prosecution failed to establish the charge. The conviction and sentence were set aside and immediate release directed unless the appellant was required in another case. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. Immediate release directed unless wanted in another case; pending applications disposed of.