Benefit of Doubt Overrides Uncorroborated Eyewitness Claims: Patna HC

Exposing critical gaps in the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Patna High Court acquitted an accused of attempted murder after finding that uncorroborated ocular evidence in dark conditions cannot sustain a criminal conviction.

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha set aside the conviction and ten-year sentence imposed on the appellant in an appeal challenging the verdict of the trial court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court observed that while the presence of an injured witness generally carries weight, it does not make their testimony immune from scrutiny when independent corroboration from physical and medical evidence is entirely absent.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A chain which contains several missing links cannot be treated as complete merely because each individual circumstance, viewed in isolation, may admit of an innocent explanation."

Addressing the lack of ballistic and recovery evidence, the Court noted that while non-recovery of a weapon is not always fatal, its impact becomes significant when ocular testimony is doubtful. Citing Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh ( "(2025) 3 SCC 378": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 200), the Court reiterated that non-recovery of a weapon does not automatically defeat a prosecution case if direct, credible, and unimpeachable ocular evidence exists, but emphasized that the present case lacked such reliable support.

Highlighting the fundamental evidentiary standard in criminal trials by relying on Gambhir Singh vs. State of U.P., the Court reiterated: "The law is well-settled that in a criminal case irrespective of the gravity and nature of charges, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the guilt of the accused by leading evidence which is convincing and links the accused with the crime beyond all manner of reasonable doubt."

Regarding significant omissions in police statements recorded under the code, the Court referred to Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2025) 3 SCC 565": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 29), noting that material facts introduced for the first time before the court affect witness credibility.

Background

The dispute originated from an incident on June 11, 2008, where the informant alleged that the appellant abused him and fired two shots from a country-made pistol, injuring his right palm and chest. Sherghati P.S. Case No. 210 of 2008 was subsequently registered under Sections 341, 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and under Section 27 of the Arms Act to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. Challenging this, the appellant argued before the High Court that there was an unexplained delay in registering the formal FIR, the fardbeyan was never exhibited, the medical report failed to conclusively prove gunshot injuries, no weapon or spent cartridge was recovered, and darkness precluded identification.

Upon re-appraising the evidence, the Patna High Court found that several prosecution witnesses had not actually seen the shooting and only arrived post-incident. The Court concluded that the cumulative deficiencies created a strong reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 634 of 2015
Case Title: Ajay Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sahil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri, Adv., Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Adv., Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 112