A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment addresses the foundational criminal law principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary worth of alleged eye-witness testimony, forensic inconsistencies, and the legal effect of refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade in a prosecution for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case rested substantially on the testimonies of the deceased’s father and brother, who claimed to have witnessed the shooting inside a university campus and to have transported the injured victim to hospital. However, documentary evidence in the form of the ruqqa, hospital records, and defence testimony created serious doubt regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence.

The Court undertook a meticulous scrutiny of forensic science laboratory reports prepared across two different FIRs and highlighted irreconcilable discrepancies concerning the recovery, identification, and ballistic linkage of alleged weapons. The non-examination of ballistic experts, despite serious contradictions in forensic reports, was held to be fatal in the absence of unimpeachable direct evidence. The Court further clarified that refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence and cannot independently sustain a conviction where the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused beyond doubt.

The judgment reinforces constitutional protections under criminal jurisprudence by emphasizing procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and the prosecution’s burden of proof. Ultimately, the appellants were acquitted and extended the benefit of doubt, resulting in the reversal of concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court.

Keywords:
Criminal Trial, Benefit of Doubt, Eyewitness Credibility, Ballistic Evidence, Test Identification Parade, Section 302 IPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from the affirmation of conviction by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s judgment sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment for the murder of a university student. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was shot dead by three assailants inside the university campus in broad daylight. The complainant and his younger son were projected as natural eye-witnesses who allegedly rushed to the scene and later removed the injured victim to the hospital.

The prosecution narrative was challenged on multiple fronts. The defence highlighted material contradictions between the FIR, witness testimonies, hospital records, and forensic reports. Central to the controversy was whether PW-4 and PW-5 were present at the scene of the crime at all. Documentary evidence in the form of the ruqqa indicated that the deceased was brought to hospital by a third person, contradicting the prosecution’s claim.

Additionally, the weapons allegedly used in the murder were recovered in a separate FIR, and multiple FSL reports were generated across different investigations. The ballistic linkage between the recovered cartridges, bullets, and weapons was disputed due to discrepancies in descriptions and recoveries. Despite citing ballistic experts as witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine them.

The appellants also refused to undergo a Test Identification Parade. The prosecution sought to draw an adverse inference from this refusal, while the defence contended prior familiarity between the accused and the deceased. The Supreme Court was thus required to reassess the evidentiary foundation of the conviction and determine whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 26 December 2006, the deceased, a final-year law student, went to the university campus to prepare for examinations. When he could not be contacted on his phone, his father (PW-4) and brother (PW-5) allegedly went searching for him. According to the prosecution, they witnessed three assailants firing multiple gunshots at the deceased near the law department parking area at around 2:30 PM.

The FIR stated that the deceased was transported to PGIMS Rohtak by Parveen, son of Zile Singh Hooda, and another person. Contrary to this, during trial, PW-4 and PW-5 claimed that they themselves had removed the deceased to the hospital. Hospital records showed that the victim was brought dead at 3:00 PM, and the ruqqa recorded the name of a third person as the carrier.

During trial, defence witnesses DW-4 and DW-5 categorically deposed that they alone transported the deceased to the hospital and that the complainant and his son arrived later. This testimony remained unshaken. The prosecution neither examined these witnesses nor explained the inconsistency.

Multiple FSL reports were relied upon, but they related to two different FIRs. Only one of the two alleged weapons was examined in the final ballistic report. The report also contained errors regarding the recovery of the weapon and mismatched ammunition descriptions. The ballistic experts who authored the reports were not examined.

The Trial Court convicted all accused based on eye-witness testimony, forensic reports, and refusal of TIP. The High Court affirmed the conviction without detailed re-evaluation of evidentiary inconsistencies.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW-4 and PW-5 were eye-witnesses to the incident?
ii. Whether contradictions between the FIR, ruqqa, and oral testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable?
iii. Whether unproved and contradictory FSL reports could sustain a conviction?
iv. Whether refusal to undergo a Test Identification Parade could independently justify conviction?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence. Material improvements were made during trial which contradicted the FIR and hospital records. The ruqqa clearly established that a third person transported the deceased.

It was argued that ballistic evidence was unreliable due to contradictory FSL reports, non-production of weapon W-1, and non-examination of forensic experts. The defence relied upon precedents cited in the judgment itself, including Mohinder Singh, Gurucharan Singh, and Govindaraju, to argue that failure to examine ballistic experts assumes significance where direct evidence is doubtful.

The refusal to undergo TIP was justified as the accused and deceased were previously known, rendering TIP meaningless.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State submitted that PW-4 and PW-5 were natural witnesses whose presence was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. Minor inconsistencies were argued to be inconsequential.

It was contended that refusal to participate in TIP warranted adverse inference. The State argued that forensic discrepancies were clerical and that conviction could be sustained under Section 34 IPC even if one weapon was not conclusively linked.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court found that PW-4 and PW-5 made material improvements in their testimony. The FIR and ruqqa contradicted their claim of transporting the deceased. Defence testimony explaining the transportation remained unrebutted.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of ballistic evidence. Only one weapon was examined. Errors regarding recovery and ammunition type were unexplained. The non-examination of ballistic experts was fatal given the doubtful nature of direct evidence.

The Court reiterated that refusal to undergo TIP is not substantive evidence and cannot independently sustain conviction. The cumulative effect of evidentiary lapses entitled the appellants to benefit of doubt.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

Where the presence of alleged eye-witnesses is doubtful, and forensic evidence is inconsistent and unproved, conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC cannot be sustained. Refusal to participate in TIP cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that investigative lapses and casual reliance on forensic reports without expert testimony undermine the integrity of criminal trials and jeopardize public confidence in the justice system.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must scrutinize improvements in eye-witness testimony with caution.
ii. Forensic reports with discrepancies must be supported by expert examination.
iii. TIP refusal has only corroborative value and cannot be treated as substantive proof.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reaffirms the constitutional mandate of fair trial and evidentiary discipline. It serves as a cautionary precedent against convictions based on conjecture, untested forensic material, and unreliable eyewitness claims. The decision strengthens safeguards against wrongful conviction and reinforces the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 415

• Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1963] 3 SCR 585

• Govindaraju v. State, [2012] 5 SCR 67

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872