Benefit of doubt must be extended where prosecution fails to establish accused's identity as vehicle driver.

The appellant challenged a trial court judgment dated July 14, 2025, which convicted him under Sections 304 Part-II and 308 of the IPC following a vehicular accident

The prosecution alleged that on October 22, 2015, the appellant drove a heavy vehicle at high speed into a religious procession, resulting in seven fatalities and nine injuries

The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment per count of culpable homicide

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident

1. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the appellant as the driver of the offending vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the evidence provided by the vehicle owner and eyewitnesses was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 304 and 308 of the IPC

The court applied the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt

It relied on the precedents of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), which establish that if two views are possible from the evidence—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favorable to the accused must be adopted

Furthermore, the court noted that grave suspicion cannot substitute for legal evidence

The High Court found that while the occurrence of the accident was undisputed, the evidence regarding the driver's identity was inconsistent and unreliable

Multiple witnesses who initially supported the prosecution's case admitted during cross-examination that they either did not see the driver, did not know the accused previously, or were informed of his identity only by the police

The testimony of the vehicle owner (PW-29) was deemed insufficient because he admitted he was not present at the scene and could not produce documentary evidence of the appellant’s employment or presence in the vehicle on that date

Since the owner’s identification was based on hearsay (information from a third party), the court determined that the trial court's conclusion was based on erroneous marshalling of evidence

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt

The court ordered the appellant's immediate release and the refund of any deposited fines