Conviction based on contradictory and "wholly unreliable" testimony of related witnesses cannot be sustained.

The appellant, Vinod, was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of a 13-year-old girl, Chanchal, by the Trial Court on October 7, 2015

The deceased lived with her uncle, Rati Ram (PW-2). On June 6, 2009, the first informant (PW-1) was informed that the deceased was missing; her body was later discovered near a brick kiln

While the initial FIR did not name any suspects, subsequent applications by the informant on June 8 and June 12, 2009, named the appellant based on information from relatives (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6) who claimed to have seen the deceased being called to the appellant's house to prepare tea

Medical evidence confirmed death by asphyxia due to strangulation

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses—all close relatives—was contradictory and fabricated

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence of "last seen together" provided by related witnesses.

2. Whether the testimonies of the related witnesses met the standard of "discerning scrutiny" or fell into the category of "wholly unreliable" witnesses.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC

Regarding the appreciation of evidence, the court relied on the "Rule of Prudence" concerning related and interested witnesses as established in Masalti v. State of U.P., which mandates cautious judicial approach rather than mechanical rejection

It further applied the "discerning scrutiny" standard from Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu and Edakkandi Dineshan v. State of Kerala

Crucially, the court utilized the classification of witnesses from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, categorizing oral testimony as (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable, or (3) neither, noting that "wholly unreliable" evidence cannot sustain a conviction

The court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed as the naming of the appellant was done in "piecemeal" through subsequent applications based on information from relatives rather than the initial FIR

Applying the Vadivelu Thevar standard, the court identified fatal contradictions: PW-2 and PW-9 claimed there were visible dragging marks from the appellant’s house to the body's location, yet failed to mention this crucial fact to the informant or police immediately

Further, PW-2 and PW-4 provided conflicting accounts regarding their time of arrival at the scene and knowledge of the death

The court noted that PW-5 gave inconsistent statements regarding his mode of transport and interactions with the informant

the testimony of PW-6—who claimed to see the appellant carrying the body—was deemed "hard to swallow" because he waited six days to disclose this to the informant

Consequently, the court determined that the witnesses were "wholly unreliable" and that the evidence had been fabricated in stages to implicate the appellant

The court set aside the judgment dated October 7, 2015, and the sentencing order dated October 8, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The appellant, Vinod, was acquitted of all charges, his bail bonds were cancelled, and his sureties were discharged