Testimony of Hostile Witness and Contradictory Medical Evidence Can Substantiate Acquittal if Prosecution Case is Discredited

The appellant was convicted by the Special Sessions Judge and the High Court of Telangana for the murder of Shiva Shankar under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that on May 12, 2013, the appellant attacked the deceased with a stone due to a grudge regarding the deceased eloping with the appellant's sister three months prior.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased’s mother (PW1) and a friend (PW3), claiming PW3 informed PW1 of the attack.

PW3 turned hostile, denying he ever informed PW1.

Independent witnesses (PW4 and PW5) denied that a village Panchayat ever took place regarding the elopement.

The appellant challenged the concurrent findings based on discrepancies in medical evidence and the unreliability of "interested" witnesses.

1. Whether the ocular evidence provided by a related/interested witness (PW1) is sufficient for conviction when contradicted by hostile witnesses and surrounding circumstances?

2. Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be utilized by the court for the purpose of acquitting the accused?

3. Whether the conviction is sustainable given significant, unexplained discrepancies in the medical (Postmortem) reports and the timeline of death?

The Court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 323 of the IPC, alongside Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Regarding evidence, the Court relied on Masalti v. State of U.P. and Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, which mandate cautious weighing of "interested" witnesses’ testimony to avoid distorted truth.

For medical evidence, it cited Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, establishing that a postmortem report is not substantive evidence and must be corroborated by the doctor’s testimony.

Relying on Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P. and Himanshu alias Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that while hostile testimony can support a conviction if corroborated, it can also be used to discredit the prosecution's case.

The court noted that the "genesis" of the crime—the village Panchayat—was debunked by the hostile testimonies of PW4 and PW5.

The "eyewitness" link between PW1 and PW3 was severed when PW3 denied informing PW1 about the incident, leaving PW1’s testimony as an uncorroborated "interested" witness account.

The Court emphasized that since the incident occurred on a busy public road, the failure to examine independent witnesses created significant doubt.

Regarding medical evidence, the Court identified "irreconcilable" discrepancies: the Inquest Report (Ex. P7) and Postmortem Report (Ex. P8) showed different dates and times for the autopsy, which the medical officer (PW7) failed to explain adequately.

Consequently, the Court held that the testimony of hostile witnesses provided credible grounds to discredit the prosecution’s narrative.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the occurrence of the incident, the motive, or the medical veracity of the injuries beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court ruled that the testimony of a hostile witness could be properly employed to acquit an accused if it inspires credibility when read with other evidence.

The appellant was acquitted of all charges under the IPC and the SC/ST Act and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.