Benefit of doubt in murder prosecution where interested witnesses and unreliable FIR evidence undermined the conviction.

Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was held unsustainable where the prosecution depended mainly on close relatives of the deceased, no independent witness was examined despite the presence of other persons, and the eye-witness accounts were materially inconsistent on key facts. Serious doubt also arose over the place and timing of occurrence, the absence of the station diary entry, and whether the fardbeyan or earlier police information formed the basis of the FIR. Taken together, these defects rendered the prosecution version unreliable beyond reasonable doubt and entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was sustainable in view of the interested nature of the witnesses, inconsistencies in their evidence, and the doubt surrounding the first information and investigation.

Analysis: The prosecution relied mainly on close relatives of the deceased, and no independent witness was examined despite the admitted presence of several persons at the place of occurrence. The evidence of the eye-witnesses was found inconsistent on material particulars, including who was present and who was allegedly playing kabaddi with the deceased. The Court also found serious doubt regarding the place and timing of occurrence, the non-production of the station diary entry, and the contention that the fardbeyan was treated as the basis of the FIR after prior information had already reached the police. These circumstances, taken together, weakened the prosecution version and supported the defence case that the evidence was not trustworthy beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution case rests on interested witnesses whose evidence is materially inconsistent and is not supported by independent evidence or a reliable first information, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---