Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction - Eyewitness testimony - Credibility of witnesses - Benefit of doubt - Quashing of judgment and sentence

1. Introduction: The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10th May, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant challenged the judgment rejecting his appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court convicting him and another accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. Brief Facts: The incident occurred on 31st August, 2002, where the accused appellant and others allegedly fired gunshots at the deceased, resulting in his death. The FIR was lodged, investigation conducted, and charges were framed against the accused persons. The trial Court convicted the appellant, while two other accused were acquitted.

3. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: The appellant's counsel contended that the eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution was unreliable and inconsistent. It was argued that the witnesses were not present at the crime scene and their accounts were fabricated. The counsel highlighted discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and challenged the credibility of their testimony.

4. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State: The State vehemently opposed the appellant's submissions, arguing that the trial Court and the High Court had already recorded concurrent findings of facts. The State urged the Court not to interfere in the conviction based on the eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution.

5. Discussion and Conclusion: After carefully examining the evidence and submissions, the Court found significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case. The witnesses' conduct was deemed unnatural, and their claims of witnessing the incident were found to be unreliable. The Court concluded that the appellant deserved the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of all charges.

6. Judgment: The Court quashed the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant. He was ordered to be released from custody if not required in any other case. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.