Headline: Discrepancies regarding arrest, recovery, and eyewitness presence invalidate conviction where ocular testimony contradicts documentary evidence. Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside a life imprisonment sentence, acquitting the appellant of murder charges under Section 302 IPC. The Court found that the prosecution's case was undermined by grave and irreconcilable contradictions between the ocular version and documentary evidence. Specifically, the eyewitnesses’ claims of overpowering and tying the accused to a tree were directly refuted by the Investigating Officer’s testimony and the arrest memo, which recorded a standard arrest from the appellant's doorstep. Furthermore, the unexplained delay of nearly a month in recording a key eyewitness's statement, combined with inconsistencies regarding the witnesses' physical locations during the night-time incident, rendered the evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of his cousin Prabhu on 10.05.2016.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had illicit relations with the deceased’s wife, leading to an altercation where the appellant fatally assaulted the deceased with an axe.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the deceased's father (P.W.-1), and the prosecution relied on the ocular testimonies of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 (step-brother), and P.W.-3 (mother).

The trial court awarded a life sentence based on the find that these witnesses were reliable and corroborated by medical evidence.

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material contradictions and false implication.

1. Whether there are material contradictions in the ocular testimonies and documentary evidence regarding the motive and the manner of the incident.

2. Whether the prosecution established the presence and arrest of the accused at the site of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the unexplained delay in recording the statements of material witnesses vitiates the credibility of the prosecution case.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code regarding punishment for murder.

Principles governing "unexplained delay in recording witness statements" as established by the Supreme Court in Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, which holds that such delays suggest the deliberate introduction of "built-up" witnesses.

Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the impeachment of the credit of witnesses through material contradictions between their testimonies and the site plan/documentary records.

The High Court found the prosecution's motive—illicit relations—to be unsubstantiated and contradicted by the witnesses' own testimonies.

Significant discrepancies were noted between the site plan and the oral evidence; while witnesses claimed to be inside their houses, the site plan placed them in the courtyard, and the Court concluded they could not have seen the incident from inside.

The Court highlighted the "irreconcilable" conflict regarding the arrest: witnesses P.W.-1, 2, and 3 claimed the accused was tied to a tree at the spot immediately after the crime, whereas the Investigating Officer (P.W.-7) and the arrest memo stated he was arrested the following day based on an informer's tip.

The Court also took a stern view of the unexplained delay in recording P.W.-2’s statement, despite his presence during the inquest.

These inconsistencies led the Court to determine that the witnesses’ credit was successfully impeached.

The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment dated 09.11.2017, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release.

The appeal was allowed.