Material contradictions in eyewitness testimony and unexplained delay in recording statements vitiate the order of conviction.

The State appealed against the acquittal of five accused persons charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 435, 436, 295(a), 302, and 325 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

The prosecution alleged that on February 28, 2002, during the Godhra riots, a mob of 700 people torched houses and shops in Dhansura and assaulted Maulavi Yunus Ali, who later succumbed to his injuries

During the pendency of the appeal, accused No. 3 and 5 expired, and the appeal abated against them

The trial court acquitted the remaining respondents on June 10, 2003, prompting this appeal

1. Whether the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses (wife and sons of the deceased) were reliable enough to overturn the acquittal despite material contradictions and a delay in recording statements

2. Whether the prosecution proved the identity and specific involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

The court applied the evidentiary standards of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It relied on the principle that material contradictions in the versions of eyewitnesses render their testimony unreliable

Regarding the delay in recording statements, it applied the rule from *Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP & Anr.*, holding that substantial delay in recording statements of available witnesses casts doubt on the prosecution story

For appellate review of acquittals, the court followed *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka* and *H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka*, asserting that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must not disturb the trial court's finding of acquittal, especially as the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal

The court found that the star witnesses’ testimonies were riddled with material contradictions regarding the weapons used and the specific roles of the accused.

For instance, PW-12 (Tahermali) attributed an axe blow to Accused No. 2, while PW-14 (Sabirbhai) attributed it to Accused No. 1 and claimed Accused No. 2 used an iron pipe

Furthermore, the statements of these witnesses were recorded three months after the incident without satisfactory explanation for the delay

The court noted that PW-11 (wife of the deceased) could not specify the blows or weapons clearly, and the complainant (PW-1) turned hostile, stating the accused were not part of the mob

Given that the eyewitnesses were "interested witnesses" and their accounts lacked consistency and immediacy, the court held their depositions did not inspire confidence

The court held that the views taken by the trial court were "possible views" based on the evidence

Since the prosecution failed to prove the identity and overt acts of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and given the double presumption of innocence following an acquittal, there were no "substantial or compelling reasons" to interfere with the trial court's judgment