Rajesh Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.
Background
On 10 March 2005 in Munger, Bihar, a group of men allegedly hurled bombs during a dispute over an illegal liquor trade, killing the appellant's father and another person. The trial (Fast Track) court convicted three accused, sentencing two to death and one to life imprisonment, largely on the strength of the appellant's (the informant's) evidence as PW-7. On appeal, the Patna High Court set aside the convictions, acquitted all the accused, and additionally directed that perjury proceedings be initiated against the appellant/informant, having found serious contradictions and unexplained delays in the prosecution's own evidence. The informant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the acquittal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court re-appreciated the evidence and agreed with the High Court that the prosecution's case was riddled with unexplained contradictions: inconsistent accounts of when and to whom the written report/FIR was given, discrepancies in the number of bombs and explosions, and unexplained delays of over a month in recording key witness statements. The informant himself, at trial, did not support significant parts of the prosecution's case. The Court held that these inconsistencies meant guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld the High Court's decision to reverse the conviction and death sentences and acquit all accused. However, it set aside only the direction for perjury proceedings against the appellant/informant, considering the circumstances (including that two people had died), while affirming the rest of the acquittal.
Lesson Learnt
In criminal appeals, especially ones involving the death penalty, courts will not sustain a conviction where the prosecution's own evidence is internally contradictory and unexplained delays cast doubt on its authenticity: the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be diluted even when the underlying crime is grave.