Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the murder convictions of accused Nos. 2–4. The father’s and brother’s consistent eyewitness accounts were credible and medically supported; relationship alone did not make them interested witnesses or require rejection of their evidence. The child eyewitness’s account of the second killing was also reliable. The defence school-attendance record did not displace her presence because it mechanically marked every student present throughout seven months. The unappealed acquittal of accused No. 1 was outside these appeals.
Issues
- Whether related eyewitnesses could be relied upon despite allegations of interestedness and hostile independent witnesses.
- Whether the child witness’s account was displaced by the school-attendance evidence.
- Whether the convictions of accused Nos. 2–4 warranted interference.
Held
- Relatedness is not equivalent to interestedness. Credible natural eyewitnesses are not disqualified by family ties; allegations of false implication require a foundation and careful scrutiny. The father and brother gave consistent accounts corroborated by medical evidence, and the prosecution’s independent witnesses had turned hostile. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The child witness credibly described the attack and the roles of accused Nos. 2–4, consistent with the postmortem evidence. The register marked all students present for seven consecutive months without a single absence, undermining the defence claim that it proved her school attendance at the time. Neither that register nor the headmaster’s evidence displaced her account. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The evidence as a whole proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and disclosed no factual or legal error calling for interference. Only the convictions under challenge were examined; the State had not appealed accused No. 1’s acquittal. (¶¶ 6, 7, 18)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; murder convictions and life sentences of accused Nos. 2–4 upheld. Accused No. 1’s unappealed acquittal remains outside the appeal.