Benefit of Doubt Where Related Eye-Witness Account Is Undermined by Unnatural Conduct and Medical/Physical Inconsistencies

1. Introduction

Har Swaroop v. State (Neutral Citation No.- 2025:AHC:157223-DB, decided on 08.09.2025) is a criminal appeal arising from convictions under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC (with an additional charge under Section 307 IPC), relating to the alleged daylight murder of Charan Singh in a field while he was said to be ploughing on a tractor.

Over the long pendency of the appeal, it abated for several appellants due to death; the appeal ultimately survived only for Suresh. The prosecution relied primarily on three alleged eye-witnesses—P.W.3 Kunwar Pal (informant/brother), P.W.6 Kishan Dutt (brother), and P.W.4 Mahendra (near relative)—supported by medical evidence from P.W.5 Dr. P.P. Pathak and investigation evidence from P.W.7.

The central issues before the Division Bench were whether the ocular testimony could safely sustain the conviction despite: (i) inconsistencies with medical/physical evidence (trajectory, injuries, scene indicators), (ii) allegedly unnatural conduct of close relatives at the scene, and (iii) the possibility of an alternative perpetrator suggested through admitted background enmity.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Suresh, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The Court found the alleged eye-witness presence and narrative doubtful due to major inconsistencies with medical/physical evidence.
  • It treated the conduct of the close relatives—not touching or attempting to remove the body from the tractor—as highly unnatural.
  • It noted unexplained injuries (incised wounds) not attributable to the weapons alleged in the FIR.
  • It found that the defence successfully raised a reasonable possibility that some other persons (e.g., connected to prior enmity) could have committed the murder.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited (and Their Role in the Decision)

The Court anchored its approach in a detailed restatement (via Dheer Singh and Others vs State of U.P. , 2025 (4) ADJ 791) of Supreme Court principles on evidence appreciation—especially regarding related/interested witnesses, minor discrepancies, and realistic assessment. Notably, the Court used these authorities to separate minor variations (which should not derail a case) from material contradictions (which must).

A. Realistic appreciation; “pebbles vs boulders”

  • Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81: The Court invoked the need for a realistic approach and the “pebbles vs boulders” metaphor. In application, it treated trajectory/injury incompatibilities and unnatural conduct as “boulders” undermining the prosecution core.
  • Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558: Quoted for structured principles of ocular evidence appreciation. The Court ultimately found the witnesses’ claimed presence/narrative not reliable when tested against probabilities and objective indicators.

B. Related witnesses are not automatically “interested”—but scrutiny is essential

C. Medical evidence vs ocular testimony; expert opinion is not “last word”

  • Through the passage quoted (in Kaptan Singh v. State of UP, 2020 (1) ADJ 106 (DB)), the Court reproduced guidance including State of Haryana v. Bhagirath: medical opinion is to be tested for logic/probability, and courts may choose the more probable view. Here, rather than rejecting medical evidence, the Court used it to test ocular claims (tractor seat positioning vs straight trajectories; weapon-injury mismatch).

D. Injured witness principles (not directly applicable on facts, but part of the legal framework)

The Court cited principles on injured witnesses through Kaptan Singh v. State of UP, 2020 (1) ADJ 106 (DB) and Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125 (including Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355). In the present case, however, the claimed eye-witnesses were not injured; the prosecution narrative that indiscriminate firing occurred without injuries to the witnesses contributed to doubt about their presence.

E. Authority relied upon by defence

The appellant cited Amar Singh and others v. The State (NCT of Delhi). While the judgment records this reliance, the High Court’s reasoning primarily turned on factual improbabilities and the “benefit of doubt” assessment rather than an express doctrinal application of that decision.

3.2 Legal Reasoning (Why the Court Acquitted)

The Court’s reasoning is best understood as a cumulative doubt analysis—several substantial inconsistencies and improbabilities, viewed together, undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s core story and the presence/credibility of the eye-witnesses.

(i) Trajectory and position inconsistency: “tractor seat” version not matching injuries

The prosecution case was that the deceased was seated on the tractor’s driving seat (height stated as 6–7 feet from the ground) when assailants fired from ground level. The post-mortem revealed multiple firearm entry wounds with no upward direction noted. The Court reasoned that, if fired from below at a seated target, an upward trajectory would be expected; the absence of such indication made the ocular narrative inconsistent.

(ii) Unexplained injuries and weapon mismatch

The FIR alleged firearms in the hands of five accused and a ballam (spear) with a sixth unidentified person. The post-mortem showed not only firearm wounds and punctured wounds (consistent with a pointed weapon), but also incised wounds (injuries 8 and 9), which the Court found could not be explained by a spear. These unexplained injuries weakened the prosecution’s reconstruction.

(iii) Unnatural conduct of close relatives as a credibility marker

The Court treated as significant that P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 claimed that after the assailants left, they did not touch the deceased and did not attempt to remove the body from the tractor. Given that P.W.3 and P.W.6 were real brothers, and P.W.4 a close relative, the Court held this conduct to be highly unnatural, rendering their presence and testimony doubtful.

(iv) Scene-of-occurrence contradictions (blood evidence and missing indicators)

The Court highlighted contradictions regarding whether blood fell on the soil: eye-witnesses stated it did not, while the investigating officer stated he collected blood-stained soil. It also noted the absence of empty cartridges and the absence of firearm impact signs on the tractor, further clouding certainty about the prosecution’s scene narrative.

(v) Alternative hypothesis and motive landscape

The defence suggested that the deceased had broader village enmity, including with persons connected to an earlier murder case of his father, and the Court noted that P.W.3 admitted Mohan Lal had been convicted in that earlier case and later released. While not recording a positive finding that such person committed the murder, the Court held the defence succeeded in raising a reasonable possibility of an alternative perpetrator—sufficient, when combined with other infirmities, to trigger benefit of doubt.

3.3 Impact

  • Reinforced threshold for “material contradictions”: Even with abundant precedent cautioning against discarding related-witness testimony, courts will not sustain convictions where objective medical/physical indicators make the prosecution narrative improbable.
  • Unnatural conduct can be decisive when coupled with objective inconsistencies: The decision illustrates that “unusual behaviour” alone may not suffice (per general precedent), but “highly unnatural conduct” by close relatives plus medical/scene contradictions can substantially erode credibility.
  • Unexplained injuries weaken reconstruction and common object cases: In prosecutions relying on group liability (Sections 148/149), unexplained injuries and weapon mismatch can fracture the coherence of the alleged common assault narrative.
  • Investigative omissions matter when they affect the core: Non-recovery of weapon is not always fatal, but when combined with missing cartridges/impact signs and inconsistent blood evidence, it may contribute to reasonable doubt.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Benefit of doubt”: If, after evaluating all evidence, a reasonable uncertainty remains about guilt, the accused must be acquitted. It is not a finding of innocence; it is a finding that guilt was not proved to the legally required standard.
  • Section 149 IPC (common object): If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the assembly’s common object, every member can be held liable—even without proof of the individual fatal act—provided the assembly and common object are proved reliably.
  • Related witness vs interested witness: A relative is not automatically biased. An “interested” witness is one with a stake in conviction (revenge, gain, etc.). Courts scrutinize related testimony carefully; it can still be accepted if credible.
  • Ocular vs medical evidence: “Ocular” is what witnesses claim to have seen; “medical” is what doctors infer from injuries. Courts check whether they broadly align; serious mismatch can undermine the prosecution story.
  • Abatement of appeal: When an accused/appellant dies, proceedings against them end; the appeal continues only for surviving appellants.

5. Conclusion

The Division Bench’s decision in Har Swaroop v. State underscores a practical rule of criminal adjudication: while courts should not reject related-witness testimony on stereotypes and must avoid pedantic dissection of minor discrepancies, they also cannot uphold a conviction where objective medical/physical evidence, unexplained injuries, and highly unnatural conduct cumulatively make the prosecution narrative unreliable.

The judgment is significant for its clear application of the “realistic approach” doctrine: it treats contradictions going to the core mechanics of the crime (position, trajectory, weapon-injury match, scene indicators) as “boulders” that justify extending benefit of doubt—resulting in acquittal of the surviving appellant.