Supreme Court Acquits Accused After Finding Eyewitness Testimony Unreliable

In Jasobanta Sahu v. State of Orissa (2024 Latest Caselaw 280 SC), the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of a murder charge after finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses was unnatural, their testimony was unreliable, and the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence from an open place could not by itself sustain the conviction. 

The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered his uncle by repeatedly stabbing him with a knife over a long-standing family property dispute. Following investigation, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the Trial Court held that the offence amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced the appellant to three years' rigorous imprisonment. However, on a revision filed by the informant, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Upon remand, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the eyewitness testimony, extra-judicial confession and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. 

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence suffered from serious inconsistencies and failed to inspire confidence. The Court observed that: •The conduct of the two principal eyewitnesses was highly unnatural, as they neither immediately informed the police nor behaved in a manner expected of persons who had witnessed a brutal murder. 

•There were material contradictions regarding their presence at the scene and the timing of their statements before the investigating officer. •The investigating officer's testimony contradicted the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses regarding when and how they were examined. 

•Two other alleged eyewitnesses had turned hostile during trial. 

•The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant was not reliable, as the witness's testimony contained significant improvements and inconsistencies. 

•The alleged weapon of offence was recovered from an open and accessible place, reducing the evidentiary value of the recovery. 

•A conviction could not be sustained solely on such doubtful recovery, particularly when the prosecution's other evidence was unreliable. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

The Supreme Court:

•Allowed the appeal. 

•Set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the Orissa High Court. 

•Acquitted the appellant of all charges.

•Directed that the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 

The judgment reiterates that criminal conviction must rest upon reliable and credible evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasises that doubtful eyewitness testimony, inconsistent extra-judicial confession and recovery of incriminating articles from an open place cannot form the sole basis of conviction. The decision reinforces the principle that whenever reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.