Cumulative evidentiary infirmities creating reasonable doubt require acquittal on benefit of doubt.

The prosecution alleged that on 14 September 1983, following a dispute over buffaloes grazing in a paddy field, six accused intercepted and attacked Raghuraj Singh with firearms, farsas and lathis; he died from a firearm injury.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/149, 148 and 147 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC, with lesser concurrent terms for the other offences.

The appeals challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the consistency of the medical evidence, and the investigation. Ram Milan’s appeal abated following his death during its pendency.

1. Whether the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 reliably established the appellants’ participation and the alleged common object beyond reasonable doubt, despite material omissions, inconsistencies and doubts about witness presence.

2. Whether the investigative deficiencies and the medical evidence, considered cumulatively with the eyewitness evidence, left a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s account and the appellants’ guilt.

Under Sections 302/149, 148 and 147 IPC, the prosecution had to prove the charged offences, including the accused’s participation in the unlawful assembly and the common object alleged.

Applying Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, the Court treated testimony as wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or requiring cautious scrutiny and material corroboration; it also relied on Naresh v. State of Haryana for the requirement that an eyewitness inspire confidence on the core occurrence.

Relationship or enmity alone does not disqualify a witness, but testimony affected by those circumstances requires careful scrutiny and, where necessary, corroboration (Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P.; Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of M.P.).

The Court also applied Section 145 of the Evidence Act to a proved contradiction between PW-1’s trial testimony and his investigative statement.

Under Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand and Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, investigative lapses assume significance when they affect the prosecution’s substratum or create reasonable doubt; medical evidence must be assessed against the alleged manner and intensity of the assault.

The Court found PW-1’s claimed presence at the scene doubtful in light of DW-2’s evidence and PW-1’s association with Akbar Ali, a political rival of A1; it also noted material discrepancies in PW-1’s account.

PW-2’s account contained significant omissions concerning the weapons, firing and circumstances of the occurrence, while his admitted hostility required cautious assessment; the prosecution also failed to examine Dharam Singh, an alleged eyewitness.

These concerns were compounded by discrepancies in the FIR and inquest chronology, non-recovery of weapons or ballistic material, and failure to preserve or document other objective evidence.

Although the post-mortem confirmed a fatal firearm injury, the Court considered that the remaining injuries did not satisfactorily corroborate the alleged sustained farsa and lathi assault or fully confirm the described manner of the shooting.

Taken cumulatively, the evidence did not establish the specific roles or common object beyond reasonable doubt.

Ram Milan’s appeal had abated on his death.

The Court directed the release of the appellants in custody, if not required in another case, subject to compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C.; the bail bonds of the appellants on bail were to be cancelled and their sureties discharged, subject to the same provision.