Unwitnessed incident

Where the eyewitness account relied upon by the prosecution is unreliable and untrustworthy, the accused's conviction cannot sustain on the basis of medical evidence alone.

Contentions of one accused were that there was an unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R.; that medical evidence did not support the ocular version of the complainant, and that there was no recovery from the accused

Validity

Alleged incident was unwitnessed and only circumstantial evidence had been advanced

Name of accused was mentioned in the belated F.I.R. on the basis of mere suspicion of previous dispute

Statement of prosecution witness who had seen the accused and co-accused armed with weapons in moonlight recorded his statement after a lapse of 10 to 12 days of the incident

Case required further inquiry in terms of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

Since F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons, it was necessary that identification test parade was held, however same was not done

Present case was doubtful and called for further inquiry

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Accused was implicated in the case for the first time on basis of subsequent statements of complainant and prosecution witnesses

Such subsequent statements introduced at belated stage were not worthy of credence because complainant had clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that incident was unwitnessed

No crime weapon was recovered from accused

Description of accused provided to complainant did not match with the actual description of accused

Identification parade was held 15 days after the arrest of accused

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.