Contradictory eyewitness testimony undermines murder conviction where neither version provides a reliable basis for guilt.

Materially contradictory eyewitness versions on who fired the shots and who caused the injuries made the prosecution evidence unreliable, as the trial court and High Court accepted opposing accounts of the same occurrence. The Supreme Court found that such mutually inconsistent testimony did not provide a coherent basis to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained in view of materially contradictory eyewitness versions.

Analysis: Two sets of eyewitnesses gave mutually inconsistent accounts of the occurrence, each supporting a different version as to who fired the shots and who inflicted the injuries. The trial court accepted one version and the High Court accepted the other, leading to conflicting findings on the same incident. In such circumstances, the evidence did not present a coherent and reliable basis for sustaining the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were not sustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---