Summary
Three appellants convicted of murder with unlawful-assembly liability were acquitted because their presence at the attack was doubtful. The principal identifying witness knew them but omitted their names from his police statement, and the earliest report and the informant’s trial testimony named other assailants only. His later addition of these appellants lacked a plausible explanation. The murder itself was undisputed, but proof against these individuals failed.
Issues
- Whether the unexplained later identification reliably established these appellants’ presence.
- Whether the earliest report and other witness testimony supported their conviction.
Held
- The pillion-rider witness could not identify the attackers and did not support the attributed identifying cries. His testimony did not connect these appellants to the assault. (¶ 8)
- Even accepting the identifying witness’s presence, his police statement omitted these three names despite familiarity with them. The omission was duly confronted and proved, and his explanation was unacceptable. (¶ 9–10)
- The earliest report and the father’s trial evidence identified four other assailants but not these appellants. The unexplained omissions created grave doubt about their presence, entitling them to acquittal. (¶¶ 7, 10–12)
Result
Appeals allowed as to Peer Singh, Bhagwansingh and Gajrajsingh. Their convictions set aside and they were acquitted, with release forthwith unless required in another case. Pending applications disposed of.