Contradictory eyewitness testimony and weapon recovery alone cannot sustain a murder conviction.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering Chote Lal alias Netra Pal with a stone on 22 March 2016.

The prosecution relied principally on two 108 ambulance employees, PW-2 and PW-3, who claimed to have witnessed the assault, and on the recovery of the alleged weapon at the appellant’s pointing out.

The appellant denied the charge and stated that he had himself called 108.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment; he appealed from jail.

Whether the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 was sufficiently reliable to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Whether the alleged recovery of the stone and the other prosecution evidence sufficiently established the charge of murder

The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 302 IPC, which prescribes the offence of murder.

The Court applied the settled principle that the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It also treated recovery of the alleged weapon, in the circumstances of this case, as corroborative evidence that was not by itself sufficient to establish the murder charge.

The Court found that the prosecution case depended primarily on PW-2 and PW-3, whose accounts it considered self-contradictory and whose presence at the scene it regarded as doubtful.

It noted that the prosecution produced no call records or other 108 records to establish the circumstances in which the ambulance crew had been summoned, and accepted the concern that the appellant’s alleged act of calling for medical help was inconsistent with the prosecution account.

The Court also found the evidence of the other witnesses unpersuasive, questioned PW-4’s presence, and held that recovery of the stone alone could not prove the charge.

It therefore concluded that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As the appellant was in jail, it directed his release forthwith unless he was wanted in another case.