The facts of the case are that on 08.06.2007, the victim named Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav was beaten and assaulted by all four accused with knife and other weapons such as sickle and kesia, resulting in the death of the victim. The information of the said incident was conveyed to the brother and mother of the deceased victim by a person named Virendra Kumar. According to the Prosecution when the mother and brother of the deceased victim reached the incident spot, the deceased has given the dying declaration accusing the present accused persons for beating and assaulting with a knife. A FIR was registered with the police, and the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment where he was declared dead. All the four accused were convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC with a fine of Rs.5000/- each by the Fast Track Court, Jabalpur. The matter then travelled to the High Court where the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused persons approached the Supreme Court.

Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants are liable to be set aside?

The Court observed that We are conscious of the fact that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

The Court held that the dying declaration of the deceased is not corroborated by other cogent evidence by the Prosecution. Hence, the court ultimately gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant- accused and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.