Hostile testimony lacking sterling quality cannot sustain conviction; benefit of doubt entitles accused to acquittal.

The Appellants were accused of entering the house of Mangli Kunjam on April 28, 2016, and assaulting her with an axe, resulting in her death.

They were also alleged to have caused simple injuries to her husband, Maniram Kunjam (PW-1).

Following a post-mortem that confirmed the death as homicidal.

The Trial Court convicted both Appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The Appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds that the alleged eye-witnesses had turned hostile and their testimonies were unreliable.

1. Whether the death of Mangli Kunjam was homicidal in nature.

2. Whether the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding punishment for murder and Section 34 of the IPC concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The court also assessed the evidentiary value of "hostile witnesses" and the "sterling witness" quality required for conviction based on oral testimony.

Furthermore, it considered the procedural requirement of granting the accused an opportunity to cross-examine a witness when their statement in response to a court query adversely affects the defense.

The Court affirmed the homicidal nature of the death based on the medical report proved by PW-10.

PW-1 (husband of the deceased), though initially supporting the prosecution, turned hostile in cross-examination, stating he was not home during the incident and was informed by others.

PW-2 also provided contradictory versions, claiming both to have witnessed the incident and to have been away for labor work.

The Court noted that when PW-2 incriminated the Appellants in response to a court query, the Trial Court failed to grant the defense an opportunity for further cross-examination.

Ultimately, the Court held that PW-2 was not a "sterling witness" due to these inconsistencies, making it inappropriate to base a conviction solely on such testimony.

The High Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017.

The Appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC by being given the benefit of doubt.

The court ordered that their bail bonds remain in force for six months pursuant to Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.