### Acquittal Warranted Where Ocular Testimony is Inconsistent, Unreliable, and Contradicted by Proven Alibi of Co-Accused

The appellant, Omkar Mishra, was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302/34 of the IPC for the murder of his wife, Kusum Mishra, on 20.05.2000.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his family members harassed the deceased for a Suzuki motorcycle, leading her to live with her brother, Navin Kumar Shukla (P.W. 1).

While returning from school on a tricycle loader driven by Ganeshi (P.W. 2), the deceased was allegedly intercepted and shot twice—once by the appellant and once by a co-accused.

While the Trial Court acquitted all other family members based on pleas of alibi and lack of involvement, it convicted the appellant.

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and false implication.

1. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges of murder against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt despite material contradictions in ocular evidence?

2. Whether the testimony of witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) can be deemed reliable when they suppressed material facts regarding the existence of the deceased’s parents?

3. Whether the principle of parity or the extension of "benefit of doubt" applies to the appellant when co-accused standing on similar evidence were acquitted?

The Court applied Section 302/34 (Murder/Common Intention) and Section 498-A (Cruelty) of the IPC, alongside Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It relied on the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" principle as qualified in Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan, holding that while total rejection of testimony isn't mandatory, unreliable evidence cannot be split to convict one accused while granting parity to others on identical footings.

It cited Yogarani v. State regarding the principle of parity in convictions.

Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh was cited to categorize witnesses as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither.

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh was applied to emphasize the appellate court's duty to weigh probabilities and grant the benefit of doubt where two views are possible.

The Court found grave inconsistencies between the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the identity of the person who fired the second shot.

The P.W. 1 (complainant) was found to have lied on oath by claiming his parents were dead to bolster his claim of solemnizing the marriage, while P.W. 2 confirmed they were alive; this rendered P.W. 1 a "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable" witness whose testimony required strict corroboration.

The alleged motive of dowry (motorcycle) was belied by the deceased's own statement in a prior proceeding (Ext. Kha-4), which mentioned no such demand.

Furthermore, the lack of recovery of the weapon or the tricycle and the acquittal of all co-accused on the same set of ocular evidence created a "serious cloud" on the prosecution's story.

The court noted that in matrimonial disputes, there is a tendency to implicate the whole family, and once the primary narrative regarding the co-accused was found false, the same evidence could not safely sustain the appellant's conviction.

It answered the issues by determining that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and their conduct was unnatural.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 27.03.2012, and acquitted Omkar Mishra of all charges.

The Court directed his immediate release from custody, provided he is not required in any other case.