In a recent judgment delivered on December 18, the Supreme Court acquitted four persons convicted of murder, holding that the prosecution’s case could not stand because it relied almost entirely on the testimony of a single eyewitness whose statements contained major contradictions.

Background of the Case

The matter involved the alleged murder of Goreylal, based on a First Information Report filed by his mother (PW-4). She stated that she was informed by her granddaughter about the attack and rushed to the location, where she claimed she saw seven people beating her son with sticks and stones.

The trial court convicted all the accused under:
Section 302 IPC/103 BNS – Murder
Section 149 IPC/190 BNS – Unlawful assembly
Section 148 IPC/ 191 BNS – Rioting

This conviction was later upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi emphasized two key legal principles:
1. A related or interested witness cannot be disregarded solely due to their relationship.
2. However, their testimony must be examined with greater caution and scrutiny.
Why the Conviction Was Set Aside
The Supreme Court found three major issues with the prosecution’s case:

Contradictions Between FIR and Court Testimony
PW-4 gave differing versions regarding:
1. how the assault took place
2. who informed her
3. what exactly she saw
Lack of Specific Identification
1. During cross-examination, she admitted:
2. She couldn’t specify which accused used which weapon or who inflicted which injury.
3. This vagueness was crucial because Section 149 (unlawful assembly) requires clarity regarding roles and participation.
No Corroborating Evidence
The Court noted that the entire case rested solely on PW-4’s statement, with no independent witnesses or supporting material.

Key Legal Takeaway
A conviction cannot be sustained based only on the testimony of an interested witness when that testimony contains material contradictions and lacks corroboration.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
The convictions were set aside.
The four accused were acquitted.
Case Title:
Punimati & Anr. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling reinforces an important safeguard in criminal trials:

🔹 Eyewitness testimony must be credible and consistent.
🔹 Courts must exercise caution with related or interested witnesses.
🔹 Benefit of doubt must go to the accused when contradictions exist.

© LegalRath. Unauthorized copying, reproduction or redistribution is prohibited

Source- https://url-shortener.me/46EQ