A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the evidentiary fragility of a murder conviction resting primarily on weak forensic linkage, defective Test Identification Parade, and unreliable ocular testimony. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased while returning from the market. The prosecution case was built on recovery of weapons, identification of a lungi, and testimony of an alleged eyewitness. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether these circumstances formed an unbroken chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the appellant.

The Court found that the alleged weapons of assault were never scientifically connected to the crime. The purported chemical analyst report was neither produced nor available on record. Vital forensic material, including the seized shirt of the co-accused, was withheld, attracting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Test Identification Parade was vitiated by police presence and internal inconsistencies, rendering it unreliable in law.

The testimony of the sole eyewitness suffered from serious infirmities. His admitted poor eyesight, weak hearing, adverse weather conditions, and unnatural post-incident conduct eroded his credibility. The motive suggested by the prosecution was remote and lacked proximity. Applying the settled principle that where two views are possible the one favouring the accused must prevail, the Court set aside the conviction.

This decision reinforces the constitutional commitment to fair trial standards, the evidentiary value of forensic science, and the cautious approach required while relying on solitary eyewitness testimony in criminal trials.

Keywords:
Criminal jurisprudence, eyewitness credibility, forensic evidence, test identification parade, benefit of doubt

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and partly affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The appellant was convicted for murder with the aid of common intention. The High Court, however, acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the appellant’s conviction. This dichotomy in appreciation of the same eyewitness testimony formed the foundational concern before the Supreme Court.

The background of the case involved allegations of prior animosity rooted in a land dispute and a past murder case in which the deceased had been accused. The prosecution projected this as motive. The investigation relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, recoveries, and one alleged eyewitness.

The Supreme Court was called upon to test whether the evidentiary threshold required for sustaining a conviction for murder was met. The Court revisited settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence, evidentiary value of Test Identification Parade, and standards for relying upon solitary eyewitness testimony.

The judgment is significant as it underscores the necessity of scientific corroboration, procedural fairness, and judicial caution in criminal trials involving serious offences carrying life imprisonment.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution alleged that on 14 June 2001 at about 7:00 PM, the deceased was returning from Tamta market to his village when he was assaulted with an axe and stick by the appellant and the co-accused. The deceased died at the spot.

The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased after being informed by his grandson. The FIR referred to an old land dispute and the murder of the accused’s brother as the motive. The investigation led to recovery of alleged weapons and a lungi said to belong to the appellant.

Seven witnesses were examined. PW-3 claimed to have identified the lungi. PW-4 claimed to be an eyewitness. The accused denied the charges in their Section 313 CrPC statements.

The Trial Court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the co-accused on the ground that PW-4 could not identify him but upheld the appellant’s conviction. This selective reliance on the same testimony formed the core grievance before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
ii. Whether recovery of weapons without forensic linkage can sustain a conviction?
iii. Whether a Test Identification Parade conducted in police presence is reliable?
iv. Whether the testimony of PW-4 qualifies as trustworthy eyewitness evidence?
v. Whether motive alleged by the prosecution was proximate and credible?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged weapons were never connected to the crime through forensic evidence. The absence of the chemical analyst report was fatal.

It was argued that withholding of the seized shirt attracted adverse inference. The Test Identification Parade was illegal due to police presence and inconsistencies.

The eyewitness suffered from poor eyesight and weak hearing, making his testimony inherently unreliable, especially in adverse weather conditions.

The motive was stale and lacked immediacy. The conviction was therefore unsustainable.

---

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State argued that motive was established through prior enmity. The recovery of weapons and lungi corroborated the eyewitness testimony.

It was submitted that minor inconsistencies do not vitiate the prosecution case. The presence of the appellant at the spot was sufficiently proved.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook a granular scrutiny of the evidence. The Court found that the weapons allegedly recovered were not linked to the crime. The doctor admitted absence of visible bloodstains. The chemical analyst report referred to by the Trial Court was not produced.

The withholding of forensic evidence relating to the seized shirt was held to justify adverse inference. The Court reiterated that forensic evidence plays a critical role in corroborating ocular testimony.

The Test Identification Parade was declared unreliable due to police presence and procedural irregularities. The Court applied Section 162 CrPC and relied on Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma.

The lungi recovery suffered from inconsistencies regarding its location and lack of distinctiveness.

The eyewitness testimony was rejected due to poor eyesight, inability to hear clearly, contradictory circumstances, and unnatural conduct. The Court relied on Musheer Khan and Amar Singh.

The motive was found remote and unconvincing. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The conviction for murder cannot be sustained where forensic evidence is absent, Test Identification Parade is vitiated, and eyewitness testimony is unreliable. When two views are possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that modern criminal trials must increasingly rely on scientific evidence and procedural discipline to avoid miscarriages of justice.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Forensic evidence must be produced and proved.
ii. Test Identification Parade must be free from police presence.
iii. Sole eyewitness testimony requires strict scrutiny.
iv. Withholding material evidence invites adverse inference.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards in criminal trials. It cautions against mechanical reliance on ocular testimony and emphasises forensic corroboration. The decision strengthens the doctrine of benefit of doubt and ensures fidelity to due process.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2010] 2 SCR 119
ii. Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, [1955] 1 SCR 903
iii. Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 826

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973