Material contradictions, delayed implication, and flawed investigation warranted benefit of doubt and acquittal.

On 15 October 2002, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Balwinder Singh, Karnail Singh and Mukhtiar Singh went to a liquor vend at Jagjitpur. Following an altercation, Kamaljit Singh, Massa Singh and Amrik Singh intervened. The prosecution’s initial case was that Narinder Kumar alias Pappu drove a tractor over the three persons, causing the deaths of Kamaljit Singh and Massa Singh and grievous injuries to Amrik Singh. Kamaljit Singh died at Civil Hospital, Phagwara, while Massa Singh subsequently died at Civil Hospital, Jalandhar.

Balwinder Singh’s statement was recorded on 16 October 2002, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The initial version attributed the driving of the tractor to Narinder Kumar; Ajaib Singh was not named in the FIR or in the initial investigation. Subsequently, on applications submitted by Sohan Lal, Narinder Kumar’s father, a police enquiry was conducted. The enquiry concluded that Ajaib Singh had been driving the tractor and that Narinder Kumar had been sitting on its mudguard. Further investigation was thereafter conducted and Ajaib Singh was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

At trial, the injured witness Amrik Singh and eyewitnesses Balwinder Singh and Karnail Singh supported the allegation that Ajaib Singh had driven the tractor, but they denied or departed from the earlier version implicating Narinder Kumar. The trial Court acquitted Narinder Kumar but convicted Ajaib Singh under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murders and five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Ajaib Singh challenged the conviction in appeal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ajaib Singh was driving the tractor and had caused the deaths of Kamaljit Singh and Massa Singh, thereby committing an offence under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the evidence of the injured witness and eyewitnesses, in light of their changed versions, the delayed implication of Ajaib Singh and the defective police enquiry, was sufficiently reliable to sustain his conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning murder and attempt to murder causing injuries dangerous to life.

It reiterated that the accused is presumed innocent and that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In assessing eyewitness testimony, the Court considered whether the witnesses’ presence was probable and whether their evidence was inherently reliable or rendered doubtful by material inconsistencies, improvements or improbabilities.

Although minor discrepancies may be disregarded, contradictions and changes that substantially undermine the credibility of material witnesses cannot safely support a conviction. Where the prosecution evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s role, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence was consistent only regarding the tractor having struck Kamaljit Singh, Massa Singh and Amrik Singh; it was materially inconsistent regarding the identity of the driver. The FIR and the earliest version attributed the act to Narinder Kumar, whereas Ajaib Singh was introduced only after a delay of approximately two and a half months through a police enquiry initiated on applications by Narinder Kumar’s father.

The three principal witnesses subsequently shifted their positions: they attributed the driving to Ajaib Singh while denying Narinder Kumar’s presence or role, despite the earlier prosecution version and the enquiry report implicating Narinder Kumar.

The Court also found the enquiry report cryptic, unsupported by adequate details of the statements recorded, and conducted without associating the original Investigating Officer or Narinder Kumar. Amrik Singh’s statement was not recorded during his hospitalisation, despite his assertion that he remained conscious, and was recorded only on 1 January 2003 after the enquiry.

These circumstances, taken cumulatively, rendered the material witnesses unreliable and created a reasonable doubt about Ajaib Singh’s presence and role. The Court therefore held that the evidence was unsafe to sustain conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, and ordered that the appellant’s bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.