Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and procedural flaws

The court overturned the appellant's conviction under section 302 IPC due to doubts regarding the reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony of Gurmej Singh (PW3) and highlighted procedural flaws, including the non-examination of material witnesses and irregularities in witness tendering for cross-examination. The failure to obtain a ballistic expert opinion further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bail bonds were discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony.
2. Non-examination of material witnesses.
3. Procedural irregularities in tendering witnesses for cross-examination.
4. Failure to obtain ballistic expert opinion.

Summary:

1. Reliability of the Sole Eyewitness Testimony:
The appellant challenged his conviction u/s 302 IPC, arguing that the sole eyewitness, Gurmej Singh (PW3), was unreliable due to his relationship with the deceased and inconsistencies with medical evidence. The court noted that the absence of Gurmej Singh's name in the initial report (rukka Ex. P-5) created doubt about his presence at the crime scene. Additionally, the empty stomach and bladder of the deceased suggested that the sequence of events described by Gurmej Singh might not be accurate.

2. Non-examination of Material Witnesses:
The prosecution's failure to examine Raghbir Singh (PW4) and Major Singh (PW5), who were also eyewitnesses, was highlighted as a significant flaw. The court emphasized that their testimonies were essential for the prosecution's case. The practice of tendering witnesses for cross-examination without examination-in-chief was criticized, as it effectively amounted to giving up those witnesses.

3. Procedural Irregularities in Tendering Witnesses for Cross-examination:
The court discussed the legal impropriety of tendering witnesses for cross-examination without prior examination-in-chief, referencing Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The court cited various High Court judgments condemning this practice and clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo's case was misapplied by the trial court.

4. Failure to Obtain Ballistic Expert Opinion:
The court noted the prosecution's failure to send the recovered empty cartridge and the seized pistol for ballistic examination. This omission was deemed significant as it could have provided crucial link evidence connecting the appellant to the crime.

Conclusion:
The court found that the sole testimony of Gurmej Singh (PW3) was not sufficiently reliable without independent corroboration. The non-examination of other material witnesses and procedural irregularities further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.

---