The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found material omissions and contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses, coupled with their unnatural conduct, which rendered their testimony unreliable. The Court also held that the mere recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is insufficient to sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302 (Murder)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 162 (Use of witness statements)
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27 (Admissibility of recovered evidence)

Subjects:

• Murder
• Eyewitness testimony
• Contradictions and omissions
• Recovery of weapon
• Burden of proof
• Acquittal due to lack of evidence

Facts of the Case:

Nature of the Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC, challenging the High Court’s decision upholding the trial court's verdict of life imprisonment.

Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

• Appellant: Vinobhai, who was convicted for murdering Ramakrishnan.
• Remedy Sought: Acquittal on the grounds of unreliable prosecution evidence.

Reason for Filing the Case

• The prosecution alleged that the appellant stabbed the deceased due to prior enmity (the deceased had allegedly murdered the appellant’s brother).
• The trial court and High Court convicted him, relying mainly on the statements of two eyewitnesses.

What Had Been Already Decided Until Now?

• Trial Court: Convicted Vinobhai under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
• High Court: Upheld the conviction.

Issues Before the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses?
2. Whether omissions and contradictions in witness statements were material enough to vitiate the prosecution’s case?
3. Whether the recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant was sufficient to convict him?

Submissions/Arguments:

By the Appellant (Vinobhai's Counsel)

• The two eyewitnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) were unreliable due to contradictions and omissions in their testimonies.
• Material contradictions:
  • PW-4 stated that the appellant inflicted two to three stabs on the deceased’s back, but this was not recorded in his police statement.
  • PW-5 claimed that PW-4 was present at the time of the incident, but this was also an omission in his police statement.
• The conduct of witnesses was unnatural:
  • Neither witness reported the incident to the police immediately.
  • They did not attempt to take the deceased to the hospital.
  • One important witness (Sumesh) was not examined by the prosecution.

By the Respondent (State of Kerala's Counsel)

• The testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 were consistent enough to establish the guilt of the appellant.
• The recovery of the knife and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the appellant corroborated the prosecution’s case.
• Minor contradictions should not affect the overall credibility of the eyewitnesses.

Decision of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant. Key findings:

1. Material omissions and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies:

   • The omissions regarding the number of stabs, position of the body, and presence of PW-4 were deemed significant contradictions under Section 162 CrPC.

2. Unnatural conduct of witnesses:

   • The failure to inform the police or take the victim to a hospital was inconsistent with normal human behavior.

3. Failure to examine crucial witnesses:

   • The prosecution did not examine one key witness (Sumesh) who was informed about the incident.

4. Recovery of the weapon (knife) was insufficient to prove guilt:

   • Citing Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP (2023 SCC OnLine SC 984), the Court reiterated that mere recovery of a weapon is not sufficient to convict unless corroborated by other reliable evidence.

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle Laid Down):

• An accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of contradictory and unreliable eyewitness testimony.
• Unnatural conduct of witnesses weakens the prosecution case.
• Recovery of a weapon, by itself, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final Order:

• Conviction and sentence set aside.
• Appellant acquitted.
• Immediate release ordered, as he had already undergone 12 years in prison.