Conviction based solely on chargesheeted eyewitnesses is unsafe absent reliable corroboration and consistent medical evidence.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge–X, Patna, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for the alleged murder of Mahendra Singh on 7 January 1990.

The prosecution alleged that, after hearing two gunshots near the village school, informant Arun Kumar (PW 1) saw the appellant and co-accused Pramod Singh fleeing with pistols; PW 2 Ravi Ranjan Singh and PW 3 Naubind Singh claimed to have witnessed the appellant and Pramod shooting the deceased

During investigation, however, the police submitted a charge-sheet against PW 2 and PW 3 for the murder and showed the appellant and Pramod Singh as “not sent up” or exonerated

The medical evidence recorded two firearm entry wounds—one on the neck and another on the left side of the chest—and an abdominal wound described as an exit wound

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the fatal firearm injuries to Mahendra Singh, primarily on the basis of the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3?

Whether the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 could safely be relied upon when they had themselves been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency for the same offence?

Whether the material inconsistencies between the eyewitness account and the post-mortem findings created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s version of the occurrence?

Whether the prosecution’s failure to examine available independent and material witnesses weakened its case and warranted an adverse inference?

The Court applied Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, requiring the prosecution to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It relied on the principle that the testimony of an interested or related witness is not inadmissible, but must be scrutinised with caution to exclude false implication, as explained in Sudhakar alias Sudharshan v. State

It further applied the rule that ocular evidence may be rejected where medical evidence presents a gross contradiction that renders the eyewitness account improbable, relying on Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala

Under Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, non-examination of material witnesses may justify an adverse inference where such witnesses could have supplied an important gap or infirmity in the prosecution case; however, their non-examination is not fatal where the existing evidence is reliable

The governing criminal-law principle was that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof and that reasonable doubt must operate in favour of the accused

The Court held that PW 1 was not an eyewitness to the actual assault and that his evidence was merely corroborative of the appellant’s presence near the scene, while the substantive case rested on PW 2 and PW 3

Their evidence required heightened scrutiny because the investigating agency had charge-sheeted them for the same murder and had initially exonerated the appellant

Their account that the second shot was fired by Pramod Singh into the deceased’s abdomen was materially inconsistent with the post-mortem report, which described the abdominal injury as an exit wound rather than an entry wound

The Court also found inconsistencies concerning the appellant’s alleged close-range firing, since the doctor found no blackening or charring around the neck wound

The prosecution’s motive changed from opposition to a criminal case involving Manju Devi to an alleged illicit relationship, and these later versions were not supported by the investigating officer’s evidence

Further, despite the alleged presence of numerous villagers and the availability of several charge-sheet witnesses, no independent eyewitness was examined

The defence evidence, including evidence suggesting the presence of the appellant elsewhere and the possible involvement of PW 2 and PW 3, reinforced the reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution evidence

The evidence of the principal eyewitnesses was insufficiently reliable, materially contradicted by the medical evidence, and unsupported by independent corroboration

The appeal was allowed; the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside.

The appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. As he was on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties were discharged