Conviction cannot rest on inconsistent testimonies of chance witnesses where significant investigative deficiencies—such as failure to seize the weapon or recover forensic evidence—create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Appeal against conviction - Benefit of doubt - Prosecution relied on testimonies of chance witnesses and evidence of injury - Inconsistencies observed in site plan, witness accounts regarding incident time and roles, and absence of forensic evidence - Absence of weapon seizure or recovery of blood-stained articles from scene further weakened prosecution case. (Paras 13, 19-21, 27)

(B) Evidence - Chance witnesses - Testimony of such witnesses requires cautious and close scrutiny - If presence of witness is doubtful or testimony is contradictory to other evidence, it should be discarded to avoid miscarriage of justice. (Paras 17-18)

(C) Investigation - Faulty investigation - While investigative lapses alone may not always be determinative, cumulative effect of systemic failures—such as failure to recover weapons, blood-stained earth, and inconsistent forensic data—creates substantial doubt, entitling accused to acquittal when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 24-27)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to murder the informant during a dispute over land possession. One individual suffered gunshot injuries. The case relied heavily on the testimony of two alleged eye witnesses who were present at the scene by chance. The prosecution failed to provide evidence of the weapon used or blood-stained materials from the site, and the FIR was registered in a jurisdiction different from the incident location. The trial court convicted the accused, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent regarding the time of occurrence, the specific actions of the accused, and the site plan details. The presence of the witnesses at the location was not adequately explained. Combined with the lack of material evidence (seized weapons or blood-stained exhibits), the court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the conviction for attempt to murder is sustainable in light of the inconsistent testimonies of chance witnesses and significant deficiencies in the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution's case is built on inconsistent and unreliable testimonies of chance witnesses and is further undermined by critical investigative failures, failing to meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and factual context of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. trial court findings and rival contentions of the parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. evaluation of chance witnesses and evidentiary inconsistencies. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. legal impact of investigative lapses and defective police inquiry. (Para 25 , 26)
5. final reasoning, benefit of doubt, and acquittal order. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Chandra Badan, learned AGA for the State.

2. Before proceeding with the case a parting observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subal Ghorai Vs. State of West Bengal , (2013) 4 SCC 607 is worth quoting wherein investigative agency and the trial court were advised to be careful and responsive while investigation and conducting trial. The quote is reiterated underneath:-

“59...........we must express that the investigation of this case is far from satisfactory and recording of evidence is done in a casual manner. Justice is done only because of the inherent strength of the prosecution case and credible evidence of the honest rustic witnesses. Sessions cases involve the rights of the victims and rights of the accused. Even the society has a great stake in the proper conduct of sessions cases because they have relevance to the maintenance of law and order. Investigation of criminal cases must, therefore, be done very carefully and trials must be conducted with a sense of responsibility.”

THE APPEAL:-

3. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the judgment of conviction has been preferred by two accused i.e. appellant no. 1 Brijbasi Lal S/o Chhote Singh (Father) and appellant no. 2- Keshav Singh @ Kallu S/o Brijbasi Lal (Son). During the pendency of appeal, father passed away and the criminal appeal abated against appellant no. 1- Brijbasi Lal. During the argument, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the sole surviving appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu is also 78 years of age. The incident is of 04.12.1980, wherein the allegation against the sole surviving appellant is of opening fire at informant Rajendra Singh wherein Shiv Kumar Singh suffered gun shot injury. The role of exhortation is on the deceased. The trial court in judgment of conviction dated 26.06.1987 in Sessions Trial No. 165 of 1986 ( State Vs. Brijbasi Lal and another ) has awarded punishment of rigorous imprisonment of three years and Rs. 5000/- fine against the sole surviving appellant. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further one year rigorous imprisonment. There is no point of mentioning the punishment awarded on Brijbasi Lal (deceased).

INSIGHTFUL FACTS:-

4. Prior to disclosure of prosecution case certain glaring facts need to be mentioned at the threshold, reiterated underneath:-

4.1 Accused appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu and the informant Rajendra Singh are neighbours and residents of Village- Mahalerpur, P.S.- Karhal, District- Mainpuri.

4.2 There is dispute regarding of possession of land between informant Rajendra Singh and deceased Brijbasi Lal, a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC was pending.

4.3 The injured witness Shiv Kumar Singh, who is a chance witness is resident of Village- Vikrampur, Civil Lines Etawah.

4.4 Eye Witness Sughar Singh is resident of Kausari Khera, P.S.- Nagla Kangar, Mainpuri, who is also a chance witness.

4.5 The father of informant, namely, Mulaim Singh also allegedly suffered gun shot injuries; but there is neither the medico legal examination report nor he is being produced as a witness in the court, hence the trial court has not relied the witness on the point of Keshav opened fire at Mulaim Singh on his injuries.

4.6 The licensed gun which was used by accused appellant Keshav Singh belongs to his grand father Subedar which has not been taken into custody by the poli