Conviction Quashed – Appellant Acquitted – Lack of Proof of Last Seen Together – Omissions in Testimonies – Procedural Errors in Contradicting Witness Statements – Circumstantial Evidence Incomplete.

Conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant acquitted due to: a. Unreliable evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 – Omissions amounted to contradictions. (Para 10) b. Failure to establish the last seen theory beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 10) c. Procedural errors by the Trial Court in proving contradictions under Section 162 of the CrPC. (Para 11)

Held:

Appellant acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Procedural lapses by the Trial Court highlighted. (Para 12)

Major Acts/Sections:

• Constitution of India – Article 136

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161, Section 162

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302

Subjects: Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Omissions in Testimonies – Procedural Lapses – Contradiction of Witness Statements – Bloodstained Clothes – Absconding Accused – Motive Absence.

Nature of the Litigation: Criminal Appeal against the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Relief Sought: Appellant sought reversal of conviction and acquittal from charges of murder.

Reason for Filing: Appellant challenged the High Court's affirmation of Sessions Court's conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Previous Decisions: Sessions Court convicted the appellant, which was upheld by the High Court.

Issues: a. Whether the prosecution proved the theory of last seen together beyond a reasonable doubt? (Para 10) b. Whether omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses affected the prosecution’s case? (Para 10) c. Whether the procedural lapses in recording witness contradictions by the Trial Court vitiated the trial? (Para 11)

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: Inconsistencies in testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3, failure to establish last seen theory, and absence of motive weakened the prosecution’s case. (Para 3)

• Respondent: Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 corroborated the appellant’s guilt, along with his absconding and recovery of bloodstained clothes. (Para 4)

Ratio Decidendi: Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without any gaps – Omissions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses in proving contradictions rendered the prosecution’s case untrustworthy. (Para 10)