Conviction cannot stand where material contradictions and deliberate omissions render eyewitness testimony unreliable.

The appellants, original accused Nos. 2 and 7, were convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 323 IPC and 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that, during a village quarrel on 2 January 2009, the appellants beat witnesses with sticks.

The complaint was recorded on 6 January 2009; the injured witnesses’ initial medical histories did not name either appellant, although one medical certificate named several other accused.

At trial, the complainant and other witnesses were declared hostile and gave accounts that differed from their police statements.

The appellants appealed, challenging the reliability of the evidence and the resulting convictions.

1. Whether the testimony of the injured and other prosecution witnesses, considered alongside their prior statements and the medical evidence, reliably established that the appellants assaulted the witnesses.

2. Whether the evidence established the appellants’ guilt under Section 323 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, including any basis for the prosecution’s unlawful-assembly case under Sections 147–149 IPC.

Sections 323 IPC and 135 of the Bombay Police Act were the provisions under which the appellants stood convicted.

Sections 141–149 IPC require proof that the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and shared its common object; under Section 149, liability for an offence committed by a member of the assembly may extend to other members where the statutory conditions are met, and an overt act by each member is not invariably necessary [para. 34, pp. 21–24, discussing Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202].

The Court also applied the principle that material contradictions, omissions, and improvements that undermine a witness’s credibility may make it unsafe to rely on that testimony; normal discrepancies are distinguished from material ones [paras. 38–39, pp. 26–29, discussing Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657].

It referred to Mohammed Jabar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586, concerning material inconsistencies in the testimony of related witnesses.

The Court found that neither of the two doctors who examined the injured witnesses recorded the appellants’ names in the medical history, although one certificate identified other alleged assailants.

At trial, the principal witnesses contradicted or denied material parts of their earlier accounts, and the complainant did not maintain the version in his complaint.

The Court considered these discrepancies significant rather than minor, particularly in light of the delayed complaint and the parties’ involvement in a related cross-case.

The witnesses’ evidence therefore did not reliably establish the appellants’ individual participation.

Nor did the prosecution establish the unlawful assembly and common object alleged; the Sessions Court had not found the other accused guilty as members of such an assembly.

It allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 9 November 2012, and acquitted both appellants of all charges.

Their bail bonds were discharged, any fine paid was ordered to be refunded, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.