Inconsistencies in Testimony and Suppression of Evidence Vitiate Conviction Based on Unreliable Eyewitness Accounts

On June 21, 2002, the appellant allegedly killed Thakuri Mohanta by assaulting her with a Budia (axe) after initially shooting an arrow at her

The deceased’s son (P.W.1) lodged an FIR at Mahulapada Police Station, following which the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC

The trial court, relying on the eyewitness testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, and the alleged motive of witchcraft suspicion, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment on March 10, 2004

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material contradictions in witness statements and the existence of multiple versions of the FIR

Whether the ocular evidence provided by P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 is reliable and consistent with the prosecution's case

Whether the non-confrontation of contradictions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) is fatal to the defense's argument

Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt given the discrepancies in the FIR and witness testimonies

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning the punishment for murder

Section 161 and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the use of police statements to contradict witnesses

The testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in toto but can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution or defense as laid down in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Mishra and others (1996) 10 SCC 360

The graver the offence, the stricter the proof required

The Court found that the FIR (Ex. 3) was highly suspicious, as P.W.1 admitted to lodging multiple reports and the version presented in court contained details (like the arrow shot) missing from the formal FIR

The trial court’s dismissal of these discrepancies as "confusion" was deemed an unacceptable "third case" not supported by evidence

Regarding the eyewitnesses, the Court noted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 made significant improvements and contradictions compared to their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements

The High Court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that these contradictions could not be considered because they weren't confronted to the I.O., holding that the Court has a responsibility to ascertain the truth from the record

Furthermore, the alleged extra-judicial confession through P.W.7 was rejected because the witness turned hostile and the trial court erroneously treated the I.O.'s statement about what P.W.7 said during investigation as substantive evidence

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment. The appellant's bail bonds were ordered to be discharged