Failure of the injured witness to identify the assailants left guilt unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants, Narayan Singh and Hari Ram, were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, under Sections 307/34 IPC for assaulting Halkai Singh with axes, and each was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine

The prosecution alleged that the assault occurred at about 3:00 a.m. on 2 June 1986, during a land dispute

The trial court relied principally on the testimony of Devi Singh (PW-1), the injured witness’s son, and Halkai Singh (PW-2), together with medical and recovery evidence

In appeal under Section 374 CrPC, the appellants challenged the reliability of the prosecution evidence and the finding of guilt

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants assaulted Halkai Singh in furtherance of their common intention, thereby sustaining their conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC

2. Whether the discrepancies in the evidence and the failure of the injured and other purported eyewitnesses to identify or support the prosecution case entitled the appellants to the benefit of doubt

Section 307 IPC concerns an act done with the intention or knowledge, and in circumstances, that would make the act murder if death resulted; Section 34 IPC imposes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, though the doubt must be reasonable and grounded in the evidence; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted (*Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh*, as quoted at para. 20).

Minor discrepancies do not ordinarily discredit testimony, but inconsistencies that go to the root of the case may create reasonable doubt

A defective investigation alone is not a ground for acquittal; the court must assess the prosecution evidence independently of investigative lapses

The High Court found that the injured witness, PW-2, did not identify the assailants and stated that he had not seen who attacked him

The other purported eyewitnesses, PWs 4 and 5, did not support the prosecution, leaving PW-1 as the sole witness identifying the appellants; the court also noted the admitted land enmity and the defence suggestion that PW-1 was not present at the scene

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the Court held that the evidence did not establish the appellants’ participation and common intention beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court’s contrary conclusion was against the weight of the evidence

It set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted both appellants; their bail bonds and sureties were discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A CrPC to the satisfaction of the trial court