Conviction cannot stand on contradictory eyewitness testimony and unlinked weapon recoveries alone.

On 6 January 1993, an unlawful assembly allegedly attacked Gaflu and Bharat Singh at Hatta, District Damoh, using weapons including lathis, farsas and ballams. Gaflu subsequently died from his injuries. An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and a charge-sheet was filed against eleven accused persons.

During trial, one accused died and five were acquitted. The appellant, Nepal Singh, and four others were convicted under Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC. The High Court dismissed the convicts’ appeals and affirmed the convictions.

The prosecution primarily relied on the testimonies of PW-6, an injured witness, PW-7, the deceased’s wife, and PW-8 and PW-9, together with the recovery of weapons.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of the assailants involved in the assault resulting in Gaflu’s death.

Whether the testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses were sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellant’s convictions under Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC.

Whether the inconsistent treatment of similarly placed co-accused by the Trial Court, and the absence of adequate reasoning for distinguishing the acquitted accused, rendered the conviction unsustainable.

The Court applied Sections 148, 324/149 and 302/149 IPC, concerning rioting armed with a deadly weapon, voluntarily causing hurt in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, and murder committed in prosecution of that common object, respectively.

The prosecution was required to establish the appellant’s participation and the necessary common object through reliable and credible evidence. Material contradictions, omissions, embellishments and circumstances undermining the presence or perception of alleged eyewitnesses create reasonable doubt and cannot support a criminal conviction.

Recovery of weapons, by itself, does not establish the accused’s connection with the offence where the weapons are ordinary articles commonly available in rural households.

Where materially similar evidence and roles are attributed to all accused, the court must provide a rational basis for convicting some while acquitting others.

Although the death of Gaflu from the injuries was medically established, the Court found the evidence identifying the assailants unreliable.

PW-6 gave contradictory and embellished evidence, claimed to have lost consciousness after the first blow, yet described the individual acts of the assailants, and admitted that he had not personally witnessed his father being struck with a farsa.

PW-6 also acknowledged prior disputes and an earlier incident involving the complainant side, supporting the possibility of false implication.

PW-7’s statement that she arrived only after hearing a commotion and found her husband already placed on a cot contradicted her examination-in-chief claim that she had witnessed the assault.

The Court also found PW-8 and PW-9 unreliable and appearing to have been planted, while the weapon recoveries lacked independent evidentiary linkage to the appellant.

Further, the Trial Court had acquitted several co-accused on the same evidentiary material and similar allegations, but the High Court did not explain why that reasoning should not equally benefit the convicted accused.

Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s participation beyond reasonable doubt.

If the appellant was in custody, he was directed to be released forthwith; his bail bonds, if any, were cancelled, and pending applications were disposed of.