Indian Penal Code,1860; Section 307 – A conviction under Section 307 of the IPC may be justified only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution. Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case may present. (Para 17)
Criminal Trial – Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there is conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are such that they create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true when there are variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events as they have occurred. Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent persons. (Para 13) –Circumstantial Evidence – The chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only. (Para 15)
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 378 – When the Trial Court has acquitted the accused based on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not to overturn such an order of acquittal. (Para 16)