Material Contradictions Between F.I.R. and Trial Testimony Regarding Specific Overt Acts Entitle Accused to Benefit of Doubt

The appeals arise from Hathidah P.S. Case No. 70 of 1985 regarding a land dispute on September 9, 1985. The informant, Deo Nandan Yadav, alleged that the appellants and others assaulted him with a bhala (spear) to force him to vacate his house

The informant alleged he lost consciousness and that Surendra Kapri stole his money

The Trial Court (Sessions Trial No. 350 of 1987) convicted Surendra Kapri under Section 379 IPC (simple imprisonment for three months) and Baijnath Yadav under Section 307 IPC (rigorous imprisonment for four years)

The appellants challenged these convictions on the grounds of material contradictions between the initial F.I.R. and the trial testimonies

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 307 and 379 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt given the discrepancies between the written report and oral evidence.

2. Whether the testimony of the informant and witnesses was reliable in light of improvements and contradictions regarding the nature and number of injuries.

The court applied the evidentiary principles governing Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 379 (Theft) of the Indian Penal Code

The court prioritized the legal doctrine that material contradictions and "improvements" in prosecution witness statements during trial, which conflict with previous statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or the F.I.R., render the testimony untrustworthy

It further relied on the principle that there must be a consensus between ocular (eye-witness) and medical evidence to sustain a conviction

The Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material infirmities and inconsistencies

While the original F.I.R. mentioned a single bhala injury to the head and was silent on who caused it, the witnesses "improved" their story during the trial by alleging specific acts of assault and a second injury to the hand

The Court noted that the informant claimed theft occurred while he was unconscious, making his identification of the thief legally unbelievable

Furthermore, there was a mismatch between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the severity and repetition of blows

Since the witnesses’ trial depositions were in direct conflict with their statements to the police during investigation, the Court deemed them wholly unreliable

Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2015 and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2015 were set aside. Both appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds