Summary
The Court affirmed convictions for rioting and murder with common-object liability. The deceased’s children were not disqualified as witnesses by relationship, and their accounts were supported by an unrelated witness and medical evidence. Past enmity could support motive as well as false implication; it did not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony. Other witnesses turning hostile did not defeat the sufficient evidence remaining on record.
Issues
- Whether related eyewitnesses and prior enmity undermined the prosecution case.
- Whether hostile witnesses and the suggested accidental fall created reasonable doubt.
Held
- Truthful testimony of related witnesses can sustain conviction; relationship alone does not establish false implication. Here the children’s immediate presence and identification were credible, with substantial support from an unrelated witness. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Enmity is double-edged, potentially supplying a motive for the offence or false implication. It did not discredit the otherwise trustworthy evidence here and supplied a motive for the attack. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The suggested accidental fall did not undermine the accepted evidence. The doctor had acknowledged only a possibility of injuries from a fall, not concluded that this death resulted from one; the defence witnesses’ accounts had been found unreliable. (¶¶ 12, 13, 21, 24)
- Hostility of some witnesses does not require failure of the prosecution where the remaining material comprehensively proves the charge. Consistent supporting accounts and corroborative medical evidence sustained these convictions. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Convictions under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentences upheld by the High Court maintained.