Unreliable Eye-Witness Testimony and Contradictory Medical Evidence Warrant Acquittal in Homicide Prosecution

The Appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC by the Sessions Court for the alleged murder and subsequent burning of Sunita Sharma and her three-year-old daughter, Jhalak.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant had an illicit relationship with Sunita’s mother-in-law (Geeta Devi) and murdered the victims because Sunita objected to the affair.

The case rested primarily on the oral testimonies of P.W. 2 (Reeta Devi) and P.W. 4 (Sunil Sharma), who claimed to be eye-witnesses.

The trial court sentenced the Appellant to death.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, asserting that the eye-witnesses were unreliable and their conduct was unnatural.

1. Whether the testimonies of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are reliable enough to sustain a conviction for murder.

2. Whether the medical evidence corroborates the ocular version of the incident provided by the alleged eye-witnesses.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the presence of the Appellant at the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the evidentiary principle that for an eye-witness to be credible, their conduct must be natural and their testimony must be consistent with medical evidence.

The Court also adhered to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal trials and referenced the "rarest of rare" doctrine regarding the imposition of the death penalty.

The Court found the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, to be "wholly unnatural" as they neither raised an alarm during the crime nor informed the police or family members despite being present during the inquest.

P.W. 2 admitted during cross-examination that she only learned of the incident in the morning, contradicting her claim of witnessing the murder.

Furthermore, the ocular testimony—claiming the victims were strangulated with a saree—was flatly contradicted by the medical post-mortem report, which concluded the cause of death was "ante-mortem throttling" (manual strangulation) and noted the absence of ligature marks.

The Court noted that even the Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) had recorded that P.W. 4 was not an eye-witness.

Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the Appellant's presence or culpability through any credible evidence.

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 16.09.2021, acquitted Ashok Sharma of all charges, and ordered his immediate release. The Capital Appeal was allowed.