Material inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and investigative lapses warranted acquittal on benefit of reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over blockage of a drain and waterlogging outside the deceased’s house, the appellants and three other accused came to the deceased’s residence, where a quarrel escalated into violence. A2 was alleged to have shot the deceased, while A1 allegedly fired at and assaulted members of the deceased’s family. The deceased died from a gunshot injury.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, while acquitting the other three accused; the High Court affirmed the convictions.

The Supreme Court noted substantial inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence, the transportation of the deceased’s body, the presence and injuries of the eyewitnesses, and the manner of investigation. No weapon was recovered, no scene map was prepared, and the alleged licensed firearm was not proved through production of its licence.

The post-mortem evidence indicated that the deceased could have survived for three to six hours after sustaining the fatal injury, contrary to the prosecution’s assertion of instantaneous death.

Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses’ testimonies, despite the witnesses being close relatives of the deceased and despite material contradictions and inconsistencies, were sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellants’ convictions.

Whether the medical evidence, investigative deficiencies, absence of weapon recovery, and other surrounding circumstances created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case and supported a hypothesis of innocence.

Whether the appellants were entitled to acquittal by application of the benefit-of-doubt principle under the standard articulated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court considered the appellants’ convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, concerning use of arms in contravention of the statute.

The Court applied the settled principle that a conviction must be based on evidence that inspires confidence and proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; related witnesses are not to be rejected merely because of their relationship, but their testimony requires closer scrutiny where surrounding circumstances disclose inconsistencies or a possible ring of falsity.

Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court held that where the circumstances do not point solely to the hypothesis of guilt and a reasonable hypothesis of innocence remains, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt.

Contradictions in statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, investigative lapses, and medical evidence inconsistent with the ocular account were relevant in assessing the reliability of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the prosecution’s eyewitness account was not sufficiently dependable. PW5 and PW6 claimed injuries and hospitalisation that were either absent from their Section 161 statements or unsupported by the medical evidence; their alleged injuries were not consistently found or proved.

The accounts of PW2, PW3, and PW10 conflicted on whether the deceased’s body was taken to the police station or the hospital, although the inquest and investigating officer indicated that it was taken to the police station.

This conduct was considered suspicious, particularly because the post-mortem doctor stated that the deceased could have survived for three to six hours and therefore may not have died instantaneously.

The prosecution also failed to establish the scene of occurrence through a site map or recover physical evidence, weapons, or the alleged firearm licence; the investigating officer made no effective effort to recover the weapons or connect them with the fatal cartridge cover.

The independent witness was also doubtful because his account of accompanying PW2 was not corroborated by PW2.

In these circumstances, although homicide was medically established, the Court held that the identity and involvement of the appellants were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The eyewitness testimony was materially inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated, while the medical and investigative evidence weakened rather than supported the prosecution case.

Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court acquitted both appellants of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appeal was allowed; the appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and their bail bonds, if applicable, were cancelled.