Chance witness testimony and unexplained FIR delay can make a murder conviction unsafe without corroboration.

Conviction for murder based solely on a chance witness was found unsafe where the witness's presence at the scene was doubtful, his conduct was unnatural, and his account contained material inconsistencies about the assault. Unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, despite available transport, further weakened the prosecution case. In the absence of reliable corroborative evidence, the court treated the evidence as insufficient to sustain the conviction and concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the testimony of a chance witness and in the face of unexplained delay in lodging the first information report.

Analysis: The prosecution rested entirely on one eye-witness, whose presence at the spot was found doubtful. His conduct was considered unnatural because he did not inform anyone on the way back or immediately on reaching the village, and his testimony also contained material inconsistencies about the assault. The delay of many hours in lodging the complaint, despite the availability of transport, remained unexplained and further weakened the prosecution case. With no reliable corroborative evidence, the conviction could not safely stand.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---