Material contradiction between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

The appellant and the deceased were brothers, and the prosecution alleged a dispute between them over partition of their property.

The prosecution case was that the appellant stabbed the deceased on 8 February 2021.

The deceased’s wife, PW1, said she heard a noise and found him injured; their son, PW2, claimed to have seen the appellant push and stab the deceased.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting him of the other charged offences.

He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder

Whether the eyewitness testimony and the evidence concerning the arrest and recovery were sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction

The appeal arose under Section 374(2) CrPC, and the conviction challenged was for murder under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also held that statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC could not be treated as substantive evidence.

The Court found PW2’s account doubtful because he said the deceased was stabbed on the back, whereas the post-mortem recorded stab injuries to the chest and abdomen.

PW1 had not witnessed the stabbing; she said she came downstairs after hearing a noise and found the deceased injured.

The Court also noted that the deceased’s parents, who were reportedly at the house, were not examined; evidence suggested police had taken the knife from the house on the day of the occurrence, casting doubt on the prosecution’s account of the next-day arrest and recovery; and the evidence concerning PW1’s alleged assault and the timing of events was inconsistent.

Taken together, these matters left the prosecution’s case unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court further found that the trial court had given undue weight to the complaint and treated recorded statements as substantive evidence.

It ordered that any fine paid be refunded, discharged the appellant’s bail bond, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.