Convictions based on material contradictions, uncorroborated hearsay, and inadmissible call records are unsustainable.

Nand Kishore Yadav was shot near Fatuha Station Road at approximately 5:15 a.m. on 16 May 2017 and died while being taken to hospital. His son, PW-8, lodged the FIR against unknown persons, initially suspecting Upendra Tulsyan, a tenant allegedly owing ₹35 lakh in rent to the deceased.

During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the deceased’s brothers, Dhananjay Yadav and Bachchu Yadav, had a property dispute with him and had engaged Manish Kumar, Lokesh Kumar and Nitesh Kumar to murder him.

The Trial Court convicted Dhananjay, Bachchu, Lokesh and Nitesh under Sections 120-B and 302 of the IPC, while Manish was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including alleged eyewitnesses, the deceased’s driver, the deceased’s widow, the informant, the medical officers and the investigating officers. The convicted accused filed the present appeals challenging their convictions and sentences.

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficiently reliable and consistent to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants’ participation in the murder and the alleged criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-B and 302 of the IPC?

Whether the evidence relating to the alleged disclosure by the deceased identifying Manish as the shooter, the alleged property dispute, and the recovery of firearms was legally reliable and sufficient to sustain the convictions?

Whether the electronic call-detail records and firearm recovery could be relied upon in the absence of certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and forensic comparison of the seized weapon with the recovered cartridge?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code concerning murder and acts done in furtherance of common intention, and Section 120-B concerning criminal conspiracy. It also considered Section 27 of the Arms Act in relation to the alleged use of a firearm.

The prosecution was required to establish the guilt of each accused beyond reasonable doubt through admissible, trustworthy and corroborated evidence. Statements allegedly made by the deceased were assessed as possible dying declarations, but their evidentiary value depended on consistency and reliability.

Electronic call-detail records required the statutory certification contemplated by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act to be admissible.

The Court further applied the principle that a conviction cannot rest on material contradictions, uncorroborated hearsay, inadmissible evidence or incomplete circumstantial links.

The Court found a substantial departure between the original FIR and the prosecution case developed during investigation. The FIR implicated unknown assailants and expressed suspicion against the tenant Upendra Tulsyan, but did not mention the deceased’s brothers, the alleged property dispute, the prior threat, or Manish’s involvement.

The alleged eyewitnesses did not consistently identify the appellants as participants; PW-1 did not see Dhananjay or Bachchu at the scene, PW-3 merely stated that he heard about the incident, and PW-4 could not identify either the shooter or the rider.

The alleged oral dying declaration was also unreliable. Although PW-5 claimed that the deceased told him that Manish had fired at him, PW-5 omitted this material fact in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The deceased’s widow, PW-7, stated that the deceased did not name the assailant and only said that two persons had arrived on a motorcycle and fired at him. The Court therefore declined to rely on PW-5’s version.

The recovery of a firearm from Lokesh and Nitesh was not connected to the murder because the investigating officer did not send the weapon and the recovered cartridge for forensic examination.

The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged enmity between the deceased and Dhananjay and Bachchu through independent evidence.

Finally, the call-detail records were uncertified under Section 65-B and, in any event, did not establish an agreement to commit murder. These deficiencies collectively prevented the prosecution from proving either the substantive offence of murder or the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

The common judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Sessions Trial No. 600 of 2017 were set aside. All five appeals were allowed, and Dhananjay Yadav, Bachchu Yadav, Lokesh Kumar, Manish Kumar and Nitesh Kumar were acquitted of all charges. As they were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds and the sureties were released from their liabilities.