Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Payoshi Roy, Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Hulke.

Key Points: - The judgment overturns a murder conviction (Accused No.1 acquitted) and sets aside the trial court’s findings (!) (!) (!) . - Medical evidence (PW-12) states the fatal injury was a stab wound not possible by an axe; CLWs could be caused by blunt force, challenging ocular testimony that the axe caused the injuries (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Eyewitness PW-3’s testimony is found unreliable due to after-thought allegations and inordinate delays in recording statements (PW-3 delay not as critical as PW-5, PW-11 delays) and contradictions with medical evidence; PW-5 is also deemed unreliable due to belated statement and discrepancies with autopsy findings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Axe were recovered from a third person’s house; lack of sealing raises tampering concerns; CA reports inconclusive; exclusive possession by Accused No.1 not proven (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Enmity and motive among trustees and witnesses suggest possible false implicating; benefit of doubt in favor of Appellant No.1 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court holds that if medical evidence rules out ocular evidence completely, ocular evidence may be disbelieved; thus acquittal of co-accused follows and accused No.1 gets benefit of doubt (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Final order: appeal allowed; acquittal of accused No.1; release if not required elsewhere; bail terms set; interim applications disposed of (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

How to determine whether medical evidence can disbelieve ocular evidence in a murder conviction?

How to assess the reliability of eyewitness testimony given inordinate delays in recording statements?

What is the consequence when the trial court convicts a single accused under 302 IPC but acquits co-accused under 147, 148, 149, or 34 IPC?