Benefit of doubt in recovery evidence sustained the acquittal where contradictions made the prosecution case unreliable.

Delhi HC declined to interfere with the acquittal because the prosecution evidence contained irreconcilable contradictions on the core fact of recovery. The record did not consistently show whether the contraband was recovered from the Maruti van or the Tata truck, or whether seizure of the truck preceded or followed the accused's statements. The sequence of search, seizure, sampling and disclosure statements was also not coherent, and these inconsistencies created serious doubt in the prosecution case. Applying the benefit of doubt standard, the court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal remained sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the respondents was liable to be interfered with in view of the alleged recovery and the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: The evidence created serious inconsistencies as to the place and manner of recovery, including whether the contraband was recovered from the Maruti van or the Tata truck, and whether the truck was seized before or after the statements of the accused. The sequence of search, seizure, sampling and disclosure statements did not cohere, and the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain these contradictions. In criminal proceedings, where the record gives rise to serious doubt and two views are not reasonably reconcilable in favour of the prosecution, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court's view of acquittal was found to be sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution evidence contains irreconcilable contradictions on the core fact of recovery, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt and an acquittal will not be disturbed absent proof beyond reasonable doubt.

---