Materially inconsistent and uncorroborated eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeals arose from the conviction of the appellants for offences including rioting and murder with common object under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC, with certain appellants also convicted under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that, following an assault on labourer Govardhan Manjhi near a shop, the appellants took Bipin Yadav to a field and killed him with a gadasa.

The trial court imposed life imprisonment for the murder conviction.

On appeal, the High Court examined the prosecution and defence evidence, including the testimony of the informant and other witnesses, the post-mortem report, and the investigation and seizure evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence established the appellants’ participation in the murder and their common object under Section 149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts, the absence of independent corroboration, and the investigative deficiencies created reasonable doubt requiring the convictions to be set aside.

The Court considered Sections 147, 302/149 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, under which the appellants had been convicted.

A conviction must rest on prosecution evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence does not reliably establish participation and common object, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

In assessing witness credibility, the Court considered the need for caution where witnesses were related to the deceased or affected by enmity, and referred to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act in evaluating whether the evidence was reliable.

The Court found material weaknesses in the prosecution case.

PW-1 had not witnessed the initial incident at the shop, and her account of who was present there conflicted with PW-5’s testimony; PW-5’s claimed injuries were not supported by medical evidence, and the investigating officer had not verified the alleged foundation work.

The shopkeeper, a potentially material witness, was not called by the prosecution and instead testified for the defence, denying that the alleged events occurred at his shop.

The seized weapons and other articles were not produced at trial, and neither the FSL report nor the report concerning the cartridges was produced.

The Court also treated the evidence of the informant and PW-1 with caution in light of the disclosed prior enmity.

Taken together, these deficiencies meant the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It set aside the judgment of conviction dated 13 December 2022 and the order of sentence dated 20 December 2022, acquitted the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt, directed the release of Sanoj Yadav unless required in another case, and discharged the other appellants from their bail bonds.