Sole eyewitness evidence and defective investigation made the murder conviction unsafe, with inadequate Section 313 questioning compounding the doubt.

Conviction for murder and allied offences was found unsafe where the prosecution relied on a sole related eyewitness whose trial version materially departed from the FIR and conflicted with the medical evidence. The Court also noted that the investigation was deficient, with no site plan, no chemical examination of bloodstained earth, no recovery of weapons, and no effective inquiry into possession of the disputed land, leaving the genesis of the uncertain. The accused were further prejudiced by an inadequate examination under Section 313 CrPC, as the incriminating material was not properly put to them. On this basis, the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder and allied offences could be sustained on the basis of the sole eyewitness account despite material improvements, lack of corroboration, defective investigation, and inadequate examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The sole eyewitness was related to the deceased and his version at trial materially departed from the earliest version in the FIR. The testimony attributed assault to all accused in a manner inconsistent with the medical evidence, which showed only limited injuries and did not support the exaggerated account. The investigation was also found wanting, as there was no site plan, no chemical examination of bloodstained earth, no recovery of weapons, and no effective inquiry into possession of the disputed land, leaving the genesis of the occurrence uncertain. The recording of the accused persons' statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also unsatisfactory, since the prosecution case was compressed into a few questions, depriving them of a proper opportunity to explain the incriminating material.

Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was unsafe for sustaining conviction, and the accused appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---