Contradictory eyewitness testimony that fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered the deceased’s home at about 1:00 a.m. and attacked her with a chopper; their daughter and son, P.Ws. 9 and 10, were said to have witnessed the assault

The appellant appealed, challenging the reliability of those witnesses and noting, among other matters, that the blood on the chopper had not been matched with the deceased’s blood

The High Court considered the appeal against the conviction and sentence

1. Whether the testimony of P.Ws. 9 and 10 was sufficiently reliable to establish that the appellant committed the murder

2. Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the discrepancies in the eyewitness evidence and the absence of blood comparison evidence

The charge was under Section 302 IPC, which concerns the offence of murder

The Court applied the principle that the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that conviction must rest on trustworthy evidence

P.Ws. 9 and 10 were the principal eyewitnesses, but the Court found discrepancies in their accounts, including whether there was light in the room and whether their sister had visited the house on the night of the occurrence

It also noted that both witnesses said they hated their father, and that the blood found on the chopper had not been compared with the deceased’s blood

Considering these matters together, the Court found the eyewitness evidence insufficiently reliable to support conviction and concluded that the prosecution had not excluded reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt

The pending interlocutory application, if any, was also disposed of