ACQUITTAL IN CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE WHERE EYEWITNESS TURNS HOSTILE AND RECOVERY REMAINS CORROBORATIVELY UNSUBSTANTIATED

The Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Lala alias Suleshwar and sentenced to life imprisonment

On 07.03.2019, the deceased was found injured in a pit; before dying, he claimed to have been assaulted by four unknown persons at a picnic

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant assaulted the deceased and his own wife (PW-3) because he found them chatting

The prosecution relied on the recovery of a cot leg and a bamboo club based on the Appellant's memorandum statement, and an FSL report showing human blood on these items

During the trial, the injured eye-witness (PW-3), the complainant (PW-1), and the Appellant’s family members (PW-2, PW-4, PW-5) all turned hostile

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the hostile witnesses

2. Whether the recovery of weapons and the presence of human blood in the FSL report constitute sufficient evidence for conviction when the eyewitnesses have recanted

Section 302 of the IPC regarding the punishment for murder

The "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which requires that circumstances must be "conclusive" and exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused

The principle that the chain of evidence must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence, as emphasized in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Surendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The principle from Digambar Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case disintegrated as the star witness—the injured eye-witness PW-3—turned hostile and denied the incident entirely

The complainant (PW-1) testified that the deceased attributed the assault to four unknown picnic-goers, creating a conflicting narrative

The High Court found the recovery of the murder weapons suspicious, noting that witnesses (PW-13, PW-14) admitted to signing documents at the police station in the Appellant's absence

The Court held that the memorandum statement made to the police was inadmissible as substantive evidence

Since the recovery itself was doubtful and the blood group was not matched to the deceased, this single link of human blood on items could not replace a complete chain of evidence

The Court highlighted that the deceased’s failure to name the Appellant—whom he supposedly knew—while he was still conscious and speaking, created significant doubt

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence, and acquitted the Appellant by granting him the benefit of the doubt

The Court ordered the Appellant’s immediate release from jail and directed him to furnish a personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023