Murder — Unlawful Assembly — Appreciation of Evidence — Related / Interested Witness — Contradictions — Non-Examination of Material Witness — Hostile Independent Witnesses — Medical Evidence — Benefit of Doubt

Murder — Unlawful Assembly — Appreciation of Evidence — Related / Interested Witness — Contradictions — Non-Examination of Material Witness — Hostile Independent Witnesses — Medical Evidence — Benefit of Doubt

1. Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC — Proof beyond reasonable doubt mandatory
   Where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC cannot be sustained. (Paras 17–18)

2. Related / interested witness — Evidence requires close scrutiny
   Testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely on that ground; however, where material contradictions exist, such testimony becomes unsafe for conviction. (Paras 13–15)

3. Material contradictions — Manner of occurrence — Fatal to prosecution
   Contradictions in the evidence of the sole eyewitness regarding the manner of assault, information received, and role of accused persons seriously affect the credibility of the prosecution case. (Paras 8–9, 13–14)

4. Non-examination of material witness — Adverse inference
   Failure to examine the granddaughter who allegedly first witnessed and reported the incident weakens the prosecution case. (Paras 7–9, 14)

5. Independent witnesses turning hostile — Recovery not proved
   When independent witnesses do not support the prosecution and deny recovery proceedings, alleged seizure of weapons cannot be relied upon. (Paras 10–11, 15)

6. Medical evidence — Must corroborate ocular version
   Where medical evidence does not clearly support the prosecution theory regarding weapons and nature of injuries, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 12, 16)

7. Unlawful assembly — Individual overt acts not proved
   In the absence of reliable evidence showing participation and common object, conviction with the aid of Sections 148 and 149 IPC is unsustainable. (Paras 15–17)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The prosecution alleged that on 14.07.2010, the accused persons assaulted Goreylal near a pond with lathis and stones, resulting in his death (Para 3).

2. The FIR was lodged by PW-4 (mother of the deceased), claiming to be an eyewitness who was informed by her granddaughter, Indu Bai, about the assault (Paras 3, 7).

3. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the High Court (Paras 1–2).

4. During trial:

   • Independent witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 turned hostile.

   • The granddaughter Indu Bai, a crucial witness, was not examined.

   • PW-4’s testimony contained significant inconsistencies (Paras 9–11).

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Standard of proof in criminal cases
   Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion or conjecture cannot replace legal proof (Paras 17–18).

2. Evidentiary value of related witnesses
   While admissible, evidence of related witnesses must inspire confidence; material contradictions erode reliability (Paras 13–15).

3. Importance of examining material witnesses
   Non-examination of a key witness who allegedly first saw the incident creates a serious lacuna (Paras 7–9, 14).

4. Hostile witnesses and recoveries
   Recoveries based on memorandum statements cannot be relied upon when independent witnesses deny the same (Paras 10–11, 15).

5. Medical-ocular inconsistency
   Absence of clear linkage between alleged weapons and injuries undermines the prosecution case (Paras 12, 16).

---

FINAL RESULT

• The Criminal Appeals were allowed.

• The judgment of the High Court dated 17.02.2021 affirming the conviction and sentence was set aside.

• The appellants were acquitted of all charges.

• Bail bonds stood discharged.

• Pending applications were disposed of. (Paras 18–20)