Inconsistencies in Testimony and Failure to Establish Place of Occurrence Entitle Accused to Benefit of Doubt

The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 307 and 341 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting the injured, Basanti Devi, following a dispute over his reckless driving hitting a baby goat.

The prosecution case rested on the fardbeyan of PW-1, who claimed the appellant snatched a rifle from his mother and fired at the victim's chest.

During the trial, witnesses introduced a new version claiming the victim was shot while on a roof.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of inconsistent versions of the Place of Occurrence (PO), unreliable witnesses, and medical discrepancies.

1. Whether the prosecution established the Place of Occurrence (PO) and manner of occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt given the material contradictions between the FIR and oral testimony.

2. Whether the informant (PW-1) and other family members could be relied upon as eye-witnesses in light of the testimony of PW-7.

3. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s charge of firearm injury.

The court applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder) and Section 341 (Wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act regarding the use of prohibited arms.

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that the prosecution must establish the Place of Occurrence (PO) beyond reasonable doubt, as highlighted in Sanjay Yadav v. The State of Bihar.

The court applied the principle that the suppression of the earliest version of an incident and the presence of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence entitle the accused to the "benefit of doubt".

The Court found that the prosecution's narrative shifted significantly from the FIR (where the shooting happened on the ground near the house) to the trial testimony (where the shooting happened while the victim was on a roof).

PW-7 (daughter-in-law) admitted that all male members, including the alleged eye-witness PW-1, were in the fields at the time of the incident, debunking PW-1’s status as an eye-witness.

The Investigating Officer (PW-6) admitted the PO was not where the FIR claimed, and pellets were recovered from two different sites not mentioned in the initial report.

The court noted the suppression of an earlier police complaint filed by one Upendra Yadav.

The medical reports from the government and private hospitals showed unexplained discrepancies in the dimensions of the entry/exit wounds, rendering the medical corroboration weak.

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2022 and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2022. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.