Unreliable eyewitness testimony and mismatch with medical evidence led the Court to uphold the acquittal.

The alleged eyewitness account was found unreliable because the witnesses gave shifting versions, offered no convincing explanation for their presence at the scene, and behaved in ways inconsistent with natural conduct. The father-witness's presence was also treated as inherently improbable on the surrounding facts, leaving the prosecution case without a trustworthy ocular foundation. The Court further held that the wide discrepancy between the number of blows described by eyewitnesses and the injuries recorded in the post-mortem materially weakened the prosecution version. In these circumstances, motive alone could not replace proof, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the presence and testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence were reliable. (ii) Whether the discrepancy between the ocular version and the medical evidence justified interference with the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the presence and testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence were reliable.

Analysis: The testimony of the witness claiming to be present at the scene was found to be untrustworthy because of shifting stands about his land and location, absence of a convincing explanation for his presence at the spot at that hour, and conduct inconsistent with natural human behaviour. The presence of the father-witness was also held inherently improbable in the surrounding circumstances, especially when the occurrence was said to have unfolded in a manner that would ordinarily have prompted immediate intervention. On the evidence, the alleged eyewitness account did not inspire confidence.

Conclusion: The eyewitness version was held unreliable and insufficient to sustain the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether the discrepancy between the ocular version and the medical evidence justified interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The ocular version attributed a limited number of blows, whereas the post-mortem disclosed a much larger number of incised injuries. This substantial mismatch, together with the nature and extent of the injuries, rendered the prosecution version doubtful. The alleged motive, standing alone, could not substitute for proof where the basic foundation of the case had failed. In these circumstances, no infirmity was found in the acquittal recorded by the High Court.

Conclusion: The discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence supported the acquittal and did not warrant appellate interference.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case against the accused, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged eyewitness account is inherently improbable and materially contradicted by medical evidence, motive alone cannot sustain a conviction or justify reversal of an acquittal.

---