Benefit of doubt in murder prosecution prevails where delayed FIR and unreliable eyewitness evidence undermine proof of identity.

Homicidal death was established, but the prosecution failed on identity of the assailants because the eyewitness account was found unsafe. Material omissions, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, prior consultation before the report, absence of prompt disclosure, non-examination of an important injured witness, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence created reasonable doubt. In criminal law, suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and where the investigation and witness evidence do not inspire confidence, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder and allied offences, in view of the delayed FIR, inconsistent ocular evidence, and infirmities in the investigation.

Analysis: The medical evidence established homicidal deaths, but the decisive question was the identity of the assailants. The evidence of the principal witnesses was found unsafe for reliance: one witness was not an eyewitness to the actual killing, another did not witness who caused the fatal injuries, and the claimed solitary eyewitness version was weakened by material omissions, unexplained delay in recording the FIR, consultation before the report was written, absence of prompt disclosure to police, non-examination of an important injured witness, and inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence. The circumstances created serious doubt about the spontaneity and credibility of the prosecution version. In criminal law, suspicion cannot replace proof, and where reasonable doubt persists the accused must receive its benefit.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal case, conviction cannot rest on doubtful eyewitness evidence or an unexplained and suspiciously delayed FIR, and any reasonable doubt arising from a defective investigation or inconsistent evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused.

---