Unreliable eyewitness testimony and absent corroborative evidence require acquittal despite investigative deficiencies.

The prosecution alleged that, on an election day, the deceased was proceeding to his fields with his son, employee, nephew and another villager when the accused allegedly ambushed them and fired indiscriminately. The deceased was shot in the back and later declared dead at the hospital; the accompanying persons allegedly escaped when a patrol car arrived.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). A1, A4 and A6 were additionally convicted under Section 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while A2, A3 and A5 were convicted under Section 147 IPC.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7, who gave differing accounts regarding the identity of the shooter and the sequence of events.

The Supreme Court noted that no cartridges, bullet, weapons or chemically analysed blood-stained earth were recovered, independent witnesses were not examined, and the inquest was conducted before the First Information Statement was recorded.

The High Court nevertheless affirmed the convictions by relying on the eyewitness evidence and attributing the evidentiary deficiencies to alleged collusion by the Investigating Officer.

Whether the eyewitness testimonies, despite inconsistencies, doubtful presence of the witnesses and an alleged prior dispute with the accused, established the accused’s participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the medical evidence regarding the deceased’s sitting position and close-range firing was consistent with, or materially contradicted, the prosecution’s account of an ambush and shooting from behind.

Whether the absence of recoveries, seizure of cartridges and weapons, forensic examination of blood-stained earth, and examination of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Whether the alleged motive relating to the kidnapping of a girl and political rivalry was sufficiently established to support the prosecution case.

Whether alleged defective or collusive investigation could justify conviction where the substantive prosecution evidence itself did not inspire confidence.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC concerning murder, attempt to murder and constructive liability of members of an unlawful assembly, along with Sections 147 and 148 IPC concerning rioting and rioting while armed, and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning use of arms.

The governing criminal-law standard was that the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, conjecture or deficiencies in investigation cannot substitute reliable evidence.

Related witnesses cannot be rejected solely because of their relationship, but their testimony must be scrutinised carefully where their presence is doubtful or they have an apparent motive to implicate the accused.

A faulty investigation does not automatically benefit the accused; however, where reliable substantive evidence is absent, the Court cannot presume guilt merely because the investigation was poor or the Investigating Officer was alleged to have acted collusively.

Expert medical evidence inconsistent with the eyewitness account is a material circumstance requiring the prosecution version to be rejected where the inconsistency is substantial.

The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness evidence did not inspire confidence. Although variations in the sequence of events during an alleged ambush would not, by themselves, be fatal, the witnesses differed on the identity of the person who shot the deceased and the surrounding circumstances.

Their presence was doubtful because they were closely related or associated with the deceased, no eyewitness sustained injury despite the allegation of indiscriminate firing, and their blood-stained clothes were not seized despite their alleged role in carrying the deceased to the hospital.

The medical evidence indicated that the deceased was shot from close range while in a sitting position, which conflicted with the account that he was walking in a straight line and was shot from behind during an ambush.

The prosecution also failed to recover cartridges, the bullet, weapons or scientifically examined blood-stained earth, and did not examine the independent villager or members of the patrol party.

The alleged motives were unsupported by evidence: neither the kidnapping nor the claimed political rivalry was satisfactorily established, and the person allegedly responsible for the grievance was not even arrayed as an accused.

In these circumstances, the investigative lapses assumed significance because there was no dependable evidence independent of the doubtful eyewitness accounts.

The eyewitness testimony was unreliable, the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution narrative, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the investigation yielded no corroborative recoveries or forensic evidence.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.

Those in custody were directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case; where they had been released on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled.