Irreconcilable prosecution evidence and dubious witness conduct warrant acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt.

The State appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Yogesh Kumar, who was charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Des Raj on 29.11.2011

At 10:37 PM, a 108 Ambulance received a call regarding an emergency at village Saroo

The ambulance staff (PW-6) found an injured, unconscious person on the roadside, administered first aid, and informed the police

However, police records (GD entry 56-A) indicate they received information at 11:20 PM that a person was lying dead

The deceased’s wife (PW-1) alleged that the deceased called her at 10:30 PM, stating the respondent had hit him twice on the head

PW-9, a business partner, claimed to be an eyewitness to a second assault at 11:00 PM

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on 18.08.2012, finding the prosecution's evidence inconsistent

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in light of conflicting eyewitness accounts and medical evidence

2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were reliable and reconcilable with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report

3. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal where two views are possible

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

fundamental criminal jurisprudence principle of "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt"

"Benefit of Doubt" doctrine, which dictates that if two views are possible, the view favoring the innocence of the accused must be adopted

a judgment of acquittal fortifies the "Presumption of Innocence" in favor of the accused

The Court found the prosecution's narrative to be "irreconcilable" and "dubious" due to major contradictions

First, while witnesses (PW-7 and PW-8) testified that the deceased had consumed significant amounts of liquor at the respondent’s shop, the FSL report (Ex. PW-14/C) detected no alcohol in the deceased's system, rendering the witnesses' claims scientifically impossible

Second, the Court noted two conflicting versions of the assault: one occurring before 8:30 PM near a shop (PW-8) and another at 11:00 PM on the road (PW-9); both could not be true given the post-mortem report only showed two head injuries

Third, the Court questioned the conduct of the alleged eyewitness (PW-9), who fled the scene and remained silent for two days without informing the police or the family

Finally, discrepancies between the ambulance staff (who claimed the victim was alive/unconscious) and the police (who claimed he was dead upon arrival) remained unexplained, and the prosecution failed to produce call records to verify the alleged emergency calls

The Court affirmed that since the evidence was doubtful and two views were possible, the Trial Court’s decision to acquit the respondent was justified

The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of acquittal was upheld