Summary
Two appellants challenged concurrent murder convictions after other accused received the benefit of doubt. The Court found their initial knife attack distinctly proved by natural eyewitnesses and corroborating evidence. Acquittal of others, minor discrepancies and investigative omissions did not require rejecting the reliable, separable evidence against them.
Issues
- Whether acquittal of co-accused required the same benefit for the appellants.
- Whether eyewitness discrepancies, investigative omissions and alleged FIR delay undermined the concurrent findings.
Held
- Under Article 136, concurrent factual findings ordinarily are not reopened absent manifest legal or procedural error or perversity; another possible view alone does not warrant interference. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The appellants’ initial knife blows formed a distinct event which could be separated from the subsequent acts attributed to acquitted accused. Benefit given to those accused did not erase clear evidence of the appellants’ own roles. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Relationship to the deceased did not discredit otherwise natural and truthful witnesses. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a mandatory Indian rule; courts must sift reliable evidence where it can be separated without reconstructing a new prosecution case. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The deficiencies were insignificant in the overall evidence. Eyewitness accounts were corroborated by medical evidence and human-blood-stained soil from the hospital-side scene; inability to determine its blood group did not require discarding it. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The contemporaneous sequence supported the finding of no FIR delay. Contradictory unsupported defence accounts and acquittal in cross-cases concerning an earlier, separate incident did not undermine proof of this attack. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the convictions and sentences remained upheld. Bail bonds cancelled; the appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks, failing which police were to take action in accordance with law.