Benefit of doubt in murder prosecution where reasonable defence and inconsistent evidence left unresolved doubt, leading to acquittal.

Statements of an accused recorded in committal and trial proceedings are substantive material to be weighed with the rest of the evidence, and a reasonable defence supported by surrounding circumstances cannot be ignored. Here, the early and consistent defence version, the appellant's presence at the scene, the condition of the guns, inconsistencies in the eye-witness account, and the medical evidence together left unresolved doubt, which the prosecution failed to dispel by reliable proof. The conviction for murder was therefore not sustained, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution evidence, read with the accused's statements and surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence for murder.

Analysis: The Court held that the statements of an accused recorded in committal and trial proceedings are substantive material to be weighed like other evidence, and that a reasonable version put forward by the accused must receive due consideration. It found important surrounding features supporting the defence, including the early and consistent stand of the brothers, the admitted presence of the appellant at the scene, the seizure and condition of the guns, inconsistencies in the eye-witness account regarding the weapons and the order of firing, and the failure of the prosecution evidence to dispel the doubts raised by these circumstances. The Court further held that the medical evidence did not conclusively disprove the defence version.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused offers a reasonable and probable defence supported by material circumstances, the prosecution must remove the resulting doubt by reliable evidence; if it fails to do so, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

---