Summary
The Court upheld the shooter’s murder and related convictions but acquitted the two appellants alleged to have held the deceased. Credible eyewitness testimony was not displaced by minor discrepancies, the inquest-number entry or an inconclusive ballistic match. For the other appellants, however, the evidence did not convincingly establish a shared intention to murder, including knowledge that the shooter carried a pistol. Their separate appeals were allowed.
Issues
- Whether discrepancies and forensic uncertainty undermined the shooter’s conviction.
- Whether the two unarmed appellants shared the common intention necessary for murder liability.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Affirmed the shooter’s murder conviction but found the evidence insufficient to establish the other two appellants’ shared murderous intention. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
Held
- The three eyewitnesses gave a consistent account of the central incident and their presence was natural. Minor observational differences and alleged antecedents did not justify rejecting their accepted evidence. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The inquest number appearing in the FIR and its production before the Magistrate the next day did not, in the circumstances, establish fabrication or ante-timing. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Medical opinion did not rule out the accepted eyewitness account. Variations about distance and injuries were minor, and the insufficient barrel marks supplied an inconclusive match rather than a contradiction of the direct evidence. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Section 34 requires a criminal act in furtherance of the shared intention; that intention must be inferred from the whole conduct and circumstances. Here, merely holding the deceased after an exhortation, without proof of prior meeting of minds or knowledge of the pistol, did not convincingly establish the two unarmed appellants’ common intention to murder. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 37)
- Harnam Singh’s convictions and sentences were affirmed, with surrender within four weeks. Balvir Singh and Bhav Singh were acquitted of both the murder-with-common-intention and wrongful-restraint charges, and their bail bonds discharged. (¶¶ 38, 39)
Result
Harnam Singh’s appeal dismissed with surrender within four weeks; Balvir Singh’s and Bhav Singh’s appeals allowed and their convictions set aside with acquittal and discharge of bail bonds.