### Uncorroborated Interested Testimony and Major Investigatory Lapses Negating Prosecution Case Warrant Acquittal

The deceased, Buddhu Paswan, was allegedly shot dead on October 17, 2004, at the village Panchayat Bhawan

The informant/mother (PW-5) alleged that five named accused, including the appellants, approached the deceased and fired multiple shots, resulting in instantaneous death

A charge-sheet was filed under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The Trial Court convicted the appellants primarily based on the testimony of PW-5, corroborated by the wife of the deceased (PW-3) and medical evidence (PW-4)

During the pendency of the case, two original accused died

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of interested testimony, material contradictions regarding the identification of masked assailants, and discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence

1. Whether the testimony of closely related witnesses (PW-3 and PW-5) was reliable enough to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration

2. Whether the contradictions between the eyewitness account and the Investigating Officer’s findings regarding the place of occurrence and physical evidence (blood/cartridges) create reasonable doubt

3. Whether the admission by PW-3 that the assailants had covered their faces destroys the prosecution's claim of certain identification

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC regarding murder and common intention

It relied on Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act regarding the adverse inference drawn when best evidence is withheld (*Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif*)

The Court emphasized the "rule against adverse inferences from silence" under Article 20(3) and Section 313 of the CrPC (*Selvi v. State of Karnataka*)

It further applied the principle that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted (*Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*)

and noted that unnatural conduct of a witness diminishes credibility (*Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka*)

The High Court observed that while PW-5 claimed to be an eyewitness, her conduct was "wholly unnatural" as she neither raised an alarm nor physically intervened during the assault

Crucially, the Court found a fatal contradiction: PW-5 claimed clear identification, yet PW-3 admitted the accused wore cloth over their faces

Relying on *Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh*, the Court held that such identification discrepancies are fatal to the prosecution

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (PW-7) found no blood or empty cartridges at the alleged spot near the Panchayat Bhawan, contradicting the eyewitness account

The Court determined that the prosecution withheld independent village witnesses despite the daylight occurrence in a public place, warranting an adverse inference

Finally, the Court noted that deep-rooted enmity between the families served as a double-edged sword, providing a motive for false implication

The Court answered the issues by finding the eyewitness testimony unreliable due to material contradictions and unnatural conduct

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated April 23, 2018, and the order of sentence dated April 26, 2018

The appeals were allowed, the appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their immediate release was ordered