Summary
The Court acquitted two appellants convicted of murder with common intention. Material improvements and the hospital record cast serious doubt on the alleged eyewitnesses’ presence. Unexplained discrepancies in the ballistic reports, coupled with failure to examine their authors, undermined the weapon linkage. Refusal to participate in a test identification parade could not independently establish guilt.
Issues
- Whether the alleged eyewitness account and ballistic evidence proved the appellants’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether refusal to participate in a test identification parade justified an adverse inference sufficient to sustain conviction.
Held
- Material improvements about taking the deceased to hospital, the contemporaneous hospital record, and the defence witnesses’ evidence cast serious doubt on the alleged eyewitnesses’ presence at the shooting. Handing the deceased’s clothing to police at hospital established presence there, rather than witnessing the occurrence. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Examination of a ballistic expert is not invariably necessary when unimpeachable direct evidence accords with the injuries. Its significance depends on the evidence in the particular case. Here the doubtful eyewitness account and serious discrepancies in the reports required explanation by their authors; the prosecution’s failure to examine them entitled the appellants to benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Identification in court is substantive evidence; a test identification parade ordinarily supplies corroboration and its absence does not automatically render identification inadmissible. Any adverse inference from refusal depends on the circumstances and requires substantial corroborating material before guilt is found. (¶¶ 36, 37)
- Prior acquaintance emerging from the evidence called for caution in drawing an adverse inference from refusal to undergo identification. Refusal could not independently support guilt where the alleged eyewitness presence and the ballistic linkage were seriously doubtful. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court did not decide the additional argument that blackening of injuries contradicted the alleged firing distance. (¶¶ 35, 40)
Result
Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted with benefit of doubt. Release directed and bail bonds cancelled unless they were wanted in another case; pending applications disposed of.