Sole testimony of an interested witness without independent corroboration cannot form the basis for conviction (Para 18) Failure to seize crucial evidence (motorcycle) and absence of forensic examination undermines the prosecution’s case (Para 20) Inconsistent and contradictory statements from key witnesses raise reasonable doubt (Para 19) Recovery of weapons made under questionable circumstances with no bloodstains or forensic link diminishes evidentiary value (Para 21) Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment quashed — Appellants acquitted and bail bonds discharged (Para 26) Appeals allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellants acquitted (Para 25)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 136 — Special Leave to Appeal

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Recovery of Weapons

4. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 — Unlawful Assembly and Murder

Subjects:

Benefit of Doubt, Unlawful Assembly, Homicidal Death, Eyewitness Credibility, Recovery of Weapons, Inadequate Investigation

Nature of the Litigation: Criminal Appeal — Challenge against conviction for murder

Relief Sought: Acquittal — Setting aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment

Reason for Filing: Alleged wrongful conviction — Reliance on questionable eyewitness testimony — Flaws in investigation and evidence

Prior Decisions:

1. Trial Court — Convicted under Sections 302/148 IPC — Sentence of life imprisonment — Judgment dated March 10, 2003

2. High Court — Modified conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC — Maintained life imprisonment — Judgment dated August 26, 2011

Issues:

1. Whether the conviction was sustainable based on the sole testimony of an interested eyewitness (Para 7)

2. Whether the delayed submission of the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case (Para 7.2)

3. Whether the non-seizure of the motorcycle and absence of forensic evidence affected the credibility of the investigation (Para 20)

4. Whether the alleged recovery of weapons was valid and reliable (Para 21)

5. Whether the benefit of doubt should be granted due to inconsistencies in witness statements and inadequate investigation (Para 24)

Submissions/Arguments: (a) Appellants: Sole eyewitness was unreliable and had criminal antecedents — FIR was delayed — Lack of corroborative evidence — Questionable recovery of weapons (Paras 7, 7.1, 7.3) (b) Respondent: Eyewitness testimony was consistent and supported by medical evidence — Prompt lodging of FIR — Postmortem confirmed multiple stab injuries (Paras 8, 8.2, 8.3)