Conviction Set Aside Where Material Contradictions and Reliance on Chance Witnesses Fail Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Ranjeet Rai.

The prosecution alleged that on November 1, 2011, the appellant and several others, armed with rifles, intercepted the deceased and his son (the informant) near Sarenja Mode.

It was alleged that the appellant fired at the deceased’s head following an exhortation by co-accused Sukhrajo Devi, motivated by political rivalry from a recent Panchayat election.

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the witnesses were "interested" relatives, their presence was coincidental and unproven, and the medical evidence contradicted the oral testimony.

1. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7) are reliable and whether they were actually present at the scene as "eye witnesses."

2. Whether the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution is consistently corroborated by the medical evidence and the investigative findings.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt given the backdrop of political enmity.

Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act.

While testimony from relatives is admissible, it requires close scrutiny to separate truth from falsehood.

The Court cited Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras regarding the classification of witnesses as "wholly reliable" or otherwise.

Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan for the principle that if the genesis and manner of an incident are doubtful, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Court found significant discrepancies between the Initial First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent court testimonies. While the FIR suggested a general encounter, the testimony of the informant (PW-3) introduced a new "motorcycle theory" that was not mentioned in early statements to the police.

The Court noted that several witnesses (PW-2 and PW-5) were admitted by other prosecution witnesses to have arrived only after the shooting, yet they claimed in court to be eye witnesses.

The medical report proved fatal to the prosecution's case: while witnesses claimed three distinct shots were fired into the deceased's body at close range, the medical examiner found only one gunshot entry wound.

The Court determined that the witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to adequately explain their presence at the location during the festival.

Given the intense political rivalry, the court viewed these material improvements and contradictions as indicative of false implication.

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated August 29, 2018, and the order of sentence dated August 31, 2018. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith. The appeal was allowed.