Facts

On 21.12.1993 at around 6:00 PM, the deceased Balbir Singh was returning home when he stopped near Shankar's Dhaba to talk to two men. Sheeshpal arrived driving a jeep from the Sikar side, intentionally hit Balbir, and dragged him to Suresh's Dhaba, causing his death on the spot.[1000586830001][1000586830002] Suresh Kumar, the Dhaba owner, chased the jeep on his motorcycle.[1000586830001] The FIR, lodged at 7:55 PM by Bhagwara Ram (PW-8, brother of the deceased), alleged the act was due to old enmity, with Sheeshpal driving the jeep containing Nemichand, Shiv Bhagwan, Rajendra, and Prakash; it implicated them along with Bhanwarlal, Dhanvir, and Mangal (later dropped).[1000586830001] (!) Police investigated, seized the jeep (RJ-23-C-0203) and parts, conducted post-mortem, and filed chargesheets under Sections 302, 149, 120B IPC.[1000586830002] Trial Court convicted all accused (including absconding Bhanwarlal) to life imprisonment under 302/149 IPC.[1000586830002] (!) (!) (!) (!) High Court acquitted, citing unreliable eyewitnesses (interested/chance), inconsistencies/improvements over Section 161 statements, delays in recording statements, lack of independent corroboration, and investigation lapses.[1000586830006] Supreme Court dismissed State and deceased's son's appeals against acquittal.[1000586830001] (!)

Ratio

Findings of fact by High Court in acquittal cannot be interfered with unless it acted perversely or improperly; mere possibility of another view is insufficient.[1000586830007][1000586830008][1000586830009] Prosecution bears burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which never shifts; if two views possible, adopt one favoring innocence.[1000586830010] Improvements/omissions in witness statements under Section 161 CrPC (per Explanation to Section 162) can amount to contradictions if significant, creating doubt on credibility; not every improvement is fatal, but serious ones benefit defense.[1000586830014] Delay in recording Section 161 statements casts doubt if witnesses available earlier but not examined; delay not fatal if explained, but unexplained delay discredits.[1000586830014][1000586830015][1000586830016] Testimony of interested/related witnesses requires careful scrutiny for infirmities and probabilities; not inherently unreliable, but lacks credibility without independent corroboration (though not indispensable).[1000586830017][1000586830018][1000586830019] Prosecution not bound to examine all witnesses; need only produce material ones.[1000586830020] Evidence of chance witnesses (suddenly appearing/disappearing) should be discarded if presence unnatural.[1000586830021][1000586830022][1000586830023] High Court acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove case beyond doubt due to unreliable evidence, delays, inconsistencies, and lapses.[1000586830024][1000586830025][1000586830026]