Uncorroborated first-time dock identification of unknown assailants after a fleeting glimpse is insufficient for conviction.

Mohd. Javed was shot dead outside his house at approximately 8:30 p.m. on 3 October 2007.

His brother, Mohd. Abid, lodged an FIR the same night against three unknown motorcycle-borne assailants under Sections 302/34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that Dileep @ Dalda, Sunil and an absconding accused, Guddu Musalman, had committed the murder either to rob Javed or pursuant to a contract killing.

The appellants were arrested in December 2007 in connection with Arms Act cases, and the police claimed that firearms and confessional statements linking them to Javed’s murder were recovered.

At trial, PW-1 and PW-2, the deceased’s brothers, claimed to identify the appellants as the assailants.

However, their evidence showed that they reached the scene after hearing gunshots and saw the assailants fleeing from behind; neither appellant was previously known to them, and no test identification parade was conducted.

PW-10, on whose alleged police statement the appellants’ names were introduced, turned hostile and denied making the statement; the Investigating Officer did not prove the allegedly denied statements.

The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.

Whether the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 reliably established that the appellants were the persons who shot the deceased, despite their having seen the assailants only fleetingly while fleeing and identifying them for the first time in court?

Whether the alleged police statements, confessions, firearm recoveries and evidence of motive sufficiently connected the appellants with the murder?

Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, requiring proof of murder and participation pursuant to a common intention beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that witnesses who arrive immediately after an occurrence may prove relevant contemporaneous facts as witnesses of res gestae, but their evidence must still reliably establish the identity of the offenders.

Relying on Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508, and Prakash v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133, the Court reiterated that identification in court is substantive evidence, while a test identification parade is corroborative and investigative; although a parade is not mandatory, it is ordinarily desirable where the accused are strangers and the witness had only a brief opportunity to observe them.

The Court further applied the principle that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and, when denied by a witness, must be properly proved through the investigating officer; a conviction cannot rest on unproved police statements.

Finally, circumstantial evidence must form a complete and reliable chain, and any reasonable, substantial doubt must benefit the accused.

The Court accepted that the murder, its time, place and manner were established, particularly through the prompt FIR, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the gunshots and the deceased lying injured, the medical evidence, and the recovery of blood-stained material from the scene.

However, the identity of the assailants was not proved.

PW-1 and PW-2 were inside the house when the shots were fired and saw the assailants only from behind, approximately 10–12 paces away, as they fled on a motorcycle at night.

Their first-time dock identification of previously unknown persons was therefore considered unsafe; PW-2 had also identified the appellants at the police station after their arrest.

The alleged connection of the appellants through PW-10 was rejected because he turned hostile, denied making the incriminating police statements, and those statements were never proved by the investigating officer.

The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 concerning an alleged contract killing was found inherently improbable and unsupported, while PW-3’s evidence regarding the family property dispute was largely hearsay and conjectural.

The alleged police confessions were not independently admissible or corroborated, and there was no legally admissible recovery of a weapon or other incriminating material connecting either appellant to the murder under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Consequently, the prosecution evidence did not establish a complete chain of circumstances or common intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Their identification by PW-1 and PW-2 was unreliable, the alleged police-generated connection through PW-10 was unproved, the motive evidence was contradictory and hearsay, and no admissible incriminating recovery linked them to the offence.

The appeals were accordingly allowed; the conviction dated 28 January 2020 and sentence dated 30 January 2020 under Section 302/34 IPC were set aside, and both appellants were acquitted.

Their bail bonds were cancelled, the sureties discharged, and they were directed to execute personal bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 437-A Cr.P.C.