1. Appeal against conviction and life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1907
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 60 of 2012
Decided On : 18-07-2018
Advocates Appeared:
Pradeep Kumar Dey, Advocate. (A.C.), for the Appellant; Atul Jha, Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, for the Respondent
Pradeep Kumar Dey, Advocate. (A.C.), for the Appellant; Atul Jha, Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocates and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, for the Respondent
The benefit of doubt must go to the accused when there is inconsistency and doubt in the evidence, and the prosecution fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Appeal - The court analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found inconsistencies and doubts, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused appellant. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was held not guilty.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution witnesses' evidence was scrutinized for inconsistencies and doubts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found doubt in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bail bond was discharged.
Issues: Inconsistencies and doubt in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, presence of direct evidence of the incident of assault leading to death, and time difference between the separation of the accused and the deceased and the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of doubt must go to the accused appellant when there is inconsistency and doubt in the evidence, and the prosecution fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The order of the High Court, the conviction, and the sentence were set aside, and the accused was held not guilty on the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bail bond was discharged.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution evidence lacks direct proof of assault; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts regarding witness presence create reasonable doubt about culpability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to provide direct proof of the crime, the benefit of doubt must be granted to the accused. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused held not guilty on benefit of doubt; bail bond discharged. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. How does the lack of direct evidence and inconsistent witness testimony affect a conviction?
Such deficiencies create reasonable doubt regarding the culpability of the accused, which entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What is the legal consequence when prosecution evidence fails to establish a clear timeline of events?
Failure to establish the time difference between a witness's last interaction with the accused and the incident can cast doubt on the prosecution's case. (Para 6 )
7. When is the benefit of doubt granted to an accused person?
The benefit of doubt is granted to the accused when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent or fails to establish culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 7 )
ORDER
Ranjan Gogoi, J. - The accused appellant who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life is in appeal before this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant record including the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the conviction and sentence.
3. Nand Kumar (PW-1), Pintu Kumar Sao (PW-2) and Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) are the three witnesses examined by the prosecution whose evidence will require a close scrutiny.
4. Nand Kumar (PW.1) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had seen the accused appellant standing next to the dead-body with a dangerous weapon. In the cross-examination, however, PW.1 had admitted that he had seen the actual assault and had gone to say that he had seen the last assault made by the accused on the head of the deceased.
5. Pintu Kumar Sao (PW-2) who claimed to have separated the accused and the deceased a little while before the incident, while they were altercating over some issue, denied seeing Nand Kumar (PW-1) or for that matter Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) at the place of occurrence. Devender Singh @ Rinku (PW-3) is another witness who had merely deposed that he had seen the accused appellant standing by the side of the dead-body with the murder weapon.
6. The above analysis of the evidence of the prosecution would go to show that there is really no direct evidence of the incident of assault leading to death. In fact, there is some amount of inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 and some doubt with regard to the presence of PW.1 and PW.3 has also been cast by the evidence of PW.2. The prosecution has not brought on record the time difference between the PW.2 separating the accused and the deceased and the incident.
7. The aforesaid evidence casts some doubt in our minds with regard to the culpability of the accused. The benefit of the said doubt, undoubtedly, must go to the accused appellant. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the High Court under challenge and the conviction and sentence recorded and hold the accused to be not guilty on the benefit of doubt. We order accordingly.
8. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
