Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court

"Natural Conduct Can’t Be Unnatural in Law”, Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, delivered a crucial ruling in Criminal Appeal setting aside the conviction of the sole surviving appellant, Bakuni, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for the alleged murder of one Kallu. The Court allowed the appeal holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the conviction was based on inherently unreliable evidence of a solitary related witness, with no corroboration from independent sources or proof of motive.

"The presence of the eye-witness at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful... His conduct is unnatural" – Court casts serious doubt on prosecution's case

The High Court began its analysis by highlighting the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence – that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a charge as grave as murder under Section 302 IPC. The case arose from an incident dated May 22, 1985, where the deceased Kallu was allegedly assaulted and murdered by four accused, including the appellant Bakuni. While the Sessions Court convicted all four accused in 1990, the appeals continued for over three decades. With the demise of three appellants during the pendency of the appeal, the matter survived only against Bakuni.

The prosecution rested its case solely on the testimony of P.W.1, Batuni, the real brother of the deceased and the informant, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. However, the Court took serious note of Batuni’s conduct on the night of the incident – stating that his behaviour was wholly unnatural and inconsistent with the reaction expected from someone witnessing his own brother being fatally assaulted.

The Bench observed: "It is highly unnatural for the informant that after witnessing the appellants beating his brother Kallu, he ran away and stayed the entire night at the dera in Gulamipur with Heera and made no effort to find out what happened to his brother."

The Court noted that despite a nearby police outpost at just 1.5 miles, Batuni chose to flee 4 miles away and did not attempt to raise an alarm, inform the police, or even return to the scene until the next morning. Further, he never attempted to rescue his brother, nor did he claim that he was threatened or restrained in any way.

“A natural reaction for him would have been to wait for some time for the return of his brother Kallu, and if he did not return within a reasonable time, the informant would have gone to the place of occurrence... The above conduct of the informant raises serious doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence.”

"When the presence of eyewitness is doubtful and no other independent witness is examined, the entire prosecution case collapses" – Reliance placed on Hem Raj v. State of Haryana

Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614, the High Court emphasised the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witness Heera, who was allegedly present along with the informant and the deceased at the time of the incident.

“When the evidence of the eye-witnesses raises serious doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine independent witnesses would assume significance.”

The Court noted that the prosecution gave no explanation for not examining Heera, and that such an omission, coupled with the unreliable conduct of the only testifying eyewitness, rendered the entire prosecution case “weak and unworthy of acceptance.”

"Motive is not merely remote animosity; it must be proximate and credible" – Court finds motive absent and inconsistent

The prosecution had sought to establish old enmity as the motive for the crime, alleging that the deceased’s father had been involved in the murder of the accused’s father, Muneshwar, many years earlier. However, the informant himself admitted in cross-examination that relations between the families had become cordial over time, and that a matrimonial alliance had taken place between them, with the deceased Kallu’s daughter married into the family of accused Nazir.

“If this part of the informant’s testimony were accepted, there is no reason to believe that there was any enmity between the parties... There is no immediate cause or motive which could have prompted the accused to commit such a crime.”

The Court rejected the alleged motive as vague, remote, and inconsistent, further eroding the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Medical Evidence Proves Homicidal Death but Fails to Link the Accused

The post-mortem report conducted by Dr. N.K. Saxena (P.W.5) confirmed that Kallu died of shock and coma due to ante-mortem injuries, with multiple lacerations and fractures on the skull and face. While this established that a homicide occurred, the Court underscored that medical evidence did not conclusively connect the injuries with the specific acts of the accused.

“Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not conclusively link appellant with commission of crime – Ocular version unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused.”

Trial Court Committed Legal Error by Believing an Unreliable Eyewitness

The Court held that the Trial Court had erred gravely in accepting the testimony of Batuni, despite his unnatural conduct, and in overlooking the non-examination of key witnesses.

“The findings of guilt were recorded by the Trial Court on surmises and conjectures and on incorrect appreciation of evidence.”

Setting aside the 1990 conviction, the Court directed that: “The appellant No.3, Bakuni is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”

In a judgment that reaffirms long-standing principles of criminal justice and fair trial, the Allahabad High Court has rightly recognised that serious charges like murder demand compelling evidence, not conjecture, and certainly not unsupported testimony from an interested party with unnatural conduct. The prosecution’s failure to produce independent witnesses, combined with inconsistent motive theory and doubtful presence of the informant, led the Court to conclude that the guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal after more than 35 years of litigation.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2025