https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169452 Materially contradictory eyewitness versions on who fired the shots and who caused the injuries made the prosecution evidence unreliable, as the trial court and High Court accepted opposing accounts of the same occurrence. The Supreme Court found that such mutually inconsistent testimony did not provide a coherent basis to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. en-us Tue, 21 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169452 Materially contradictory eyewitness versions on who fired the shots and who caused the injuries made the prosecution evidence unreliable, as the trial court and High Court accepted opposing accounts of the same occurrence. The Supreme Court found that such mutually inconsistent testimony did not provide a coherent basis to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169452