Summary
The Court partly allowed the State’s appeals against acquittal in a shooting case. Credible eyewitness accounts, corroborated by the recovered gun and ballistic comparison, justified restoring Prem Yadav’s murder conviction. The other three accused retained the benefit of doubt because comparable corroboration was absent.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s reasons justified rejecting the eyewitness and ballistic evidence.
- Whether the omission to question the accused about the ballistic report caused prejudice and whether all acquittals required reversal.
Held
- The related eyewitnesses naturally accompanied the deceased from the fields and identified known accused by torchlight. Their relationship, minor discrepancies, absence of injuries to companions and fewer wounds than shots did not justify rejecting their accounts. The delay until the next morning was satisfactorily explained by heavy rain and fear. (¶¶ 9–10, 13–15)
- The gun recovered from Prem Yadav matched cartridges from the scene. Delay in receipt by the ballistic expert did not alone justify discarding that corroboration. An omitted section313 circumstance ordinarily requires exclusion, subject to assessment of prejudice or miscarriage of justice; on these facts the corroborative report’s omission caused no prejudice. (¶ 11–12)
- The evidentiary defects in the acquittal justified reversal for Prem Yadav. For the other three accused, absence of further substantial corroboration warranted maintaining the High Court’s benefit of doubt. (¶ 16–19)
Result
State’s appeal concerning Prem Yadav allowed; trial court’s section302 conviction and life sentence confirmed, with surrender or custody directed for the remainder. State’s appeals concerning Prem Bhujva, Raghuvir and Mehngu dismissed.