Summary
The eyewitness accounts of a fatal shooting were inconsistent and affected by prior enmity; material witnesses were not examined, the firearm was not recovered, and no ballistic link connected the pellets to the alleged weapon. In those circumstances the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the shooting and death beyond reasonable doubt despite inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence and gaps in the investigation.
- Whether the absence of a recovered firearm and ballistic opinion was fatal on this record.
- Whether the appellant could be convicted when the co-accused was acquitted on the same or similar evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 301 read with 302 and Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was convicted for the deceased’s death and for attempted murder. The Court found that the inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the convictions. (¶¶ 1, 2, 30, 33, 34)
Held
- There is no inflexible rule that a ballistic expert must be examined in every firearm case or that non-recovery of the weapon alone defeats the prosecution. But where eyewitness evidence is not credible, material witnesses are unexamined, the firearm is not recovered, and pellets or cartridge components are not forensically linked to the alleged weapon, those omissions may be fatal to proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- The eyewitness accounts materially conflicted about the witnesses’ positions and reactions, the trajectory of the shot was improbable on the prosecution’s account, one witness did not see a firearm, and prior village-election enmity supplied a motive for false implication. The non-examination of a brother said to be present and other material witnesses further weakened the case. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 11.1, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Where the evidence against two accused is similar or identical and attributes the same or a similar role, the court cannot convict one while acquitting the other without a principled distinction. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt where the co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed; the convictions and sentences under Sections 301/302 and 307 IPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted and directed to be released unless required in another case.