Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt, while sustaining accused No. 1’s murder conviction and accused Nos. 5 and 6’s convictions for attempted murder with common intention. Non-production of the recorded dying account, absence of their names in that account, and lack of recoveries or bloodstains materially weakened the case against Nos. 2 and 3. Cogent eyewitness, recovery and medical evidence supported the other convictions. The five appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Issues
- Whether the evidence reliably established each appellant’s individual involvement in the fatal and non-fatal assaults.
Held
- An FIR need not contain every detail, and shock and injury may explain omissions; a later detailed statement does not automatically invalidate the case. Identification parade was unnecessary where the injured witness already knew the accused. These general conclusions did not eliminate the need to prove each accused’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The unexplained suppression of the diary recording the deceased’s account created suspicion concerning Nos. 2 and 3, who were not named in it. No weapon or bloodstains linked them, and the other eyewitness attributed no overt act to them. On the cumulative facts the injured witness’s unsupported account did not establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- No. 1 was caught with a bloodstained chopper; eyewitness, seizure and medical evidence coherently established his guilt. Evidence concerning Nos. 5 and 6, including weapon recoveries and the injured witness’s injuries, likewise proved their participation; the discrepancies as to them were trivial. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
- Non-examination of the other patrol officer did not defeat the adequately proved arrest and recovery from No. 1. The appeal outcome was differentiated: Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted; No. 1’s Section 302 conviction and sentence and Nos. 5 and 6’s Section 307 read with 34 convictions and sentences were maintained. No. 4’s separate special-leave petition had previously been dismissed. (¶¶ 14, 46, 47, 48)
Result
Convictions and sentences of accused Nos. 2 and 3 set aside; release ordered unless required in another offence. Conviction and sentence of No. 1 under Section 302 and Nos. 5 and 6 under Sections 307/34 maintained. Appeals disposed of.