Satish Kumar vs. State of Delhi
Background
In 2000, the appellant was convicted of murdering his own brother during a property dispute, allegedly beating him with a wooden bat inside the family home in front of the victim's wife (the sole eyewitness), while the appellant's father and his own wife were acquitted of the same charge in the same trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Decision Breakdown
The Division Bench acquitted the appellant, finding the eyewitness's account unreliable and inconsistent with the physical evidence: the post-mortem showed no injuries consistent with her claim that the victim was dragged and beaten deep inside the house, and the crime team never even inspected that part of the house, focusing instead on an outdoor spot where a blood-stained cot was found. The weapon's seizure memo failed to record any blood stains at the time of seizure, even though forensic testing later found blood on it, and no independent witnesses from the busy, shop-lined street where the incident allegedly occurred were ever examined, despite dozens of bystanders reportedly being present. Since the same witness had already been disbelieved by the trial court regarding the other two co-accused, the Court held her uncorroborated testimony could not sustain a conviction of the appellant either.
Lesson Learnt
When a criminal conviction rests on a single eyewitness whose account is already partly disbelieved and is contradicted by the physical/forensic evidence, courts cannot pick and choose to convict just one accused while acquitting others based on the very same uncorroborated testimony.