Testimony of a material witness found inconsistent and lacking independent corroboration necessitates acquittal in murder trial.

On May 21, 1999, at approximately 10:00 PM, a quarrel occurred near the Railway Staff Quarters, Lawrence Road, where Narender (deceased) and Simran (PW-2, injured witness) were allegedly attacked by brothers Paras Nath and Ramu.

PW-2 claimed Paras stabbed him below the eye and inflicted fatal abdominal blows on Narender while Ramu held the victim.

Narender succumbed to injuries the next day.

The Trial Court convicted both under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC, despite finding the recovery of the weapon doubtful.

Paras Nath died during the pendency of the appeal, leaving Ramu as the sole appellant.

1. Whether the testimony of the sole injured witness (PW-2) was of "sterling quality" sufficient to sustain a conviction despite material contradictions and improvements.

2. Whether the prosecution established "common intention" under Section 34 IPC against appellant Ramu for the acts of the deceased appellant Paras Nath.

3. Whether the recovery of the weapon and the arrest procedure were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC.

It relied on the principle that while an injured witness’s testimony carries high evidentiary value (Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.), a "sterling witness" must be of high caliber and unassailable consistency (Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)).

It further applied the principle that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail in criminal jurisprudence.

The Court found that PW-2’s testimony was not of "sterling quality" as it "bristled with serious inconsistencies" compared to his initial statement (Ex. PW-2/A), specifically regarding the sequence of events and the specific role of Ramu.

PW-2 turned hostile regarding the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the weapon, contradicting the police version that he was present during the apprehension.

PW-2’s ocular evidence regarding the location of the injuries (private parts) was directly contradicted by the post-mortem report, which found no such injuries.

Given the admitted prior enmity between the parties, the Court determined that PW-2’s testimony required independent corroboration—which was missing as the only other eye witness (PW-3) turned hostile—making it unsafe to rely on a solitary, inconsistent witness to prove common intention under Section 34 IPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC, and the appeal against Paras Nath was noted as abated due to his death.

Ramu was acquitted, and his bail bonds were cancelled.