Summary
Three accused, suspecting that the deceased had revealed their friend's whereabouts to his killers, stopped the car he was in, smashed the windscreen with aruvals and wounded him, then chased him into a shed and hacked him to death. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Madras High Court acquitted them, citing the unexamined informant, hostile witnesses, delay in sending the FIR, doubtful recovery of weapons and unmatched blood groups. The Supreme Court restored the convictions. The eyewitness travelling with the deceased saw both stages of the attack and held firm in cross-examination, and a single trustworthy eyewitness can sustain a conviction. Neither the informant's non-examination, nor non-recovery of the weapons, nor discrepancies about the FIR's timing justify acquittal when reliable direct evidence exists.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused of murder despite the testimony of an eyewitness to both stages of the attack.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions recorded by the trial court on the testimony of the eyewitness were restored. (¶¶ 2.1, 9)
Held
- An eyewitness who saw the attack at the car and the accused entering and leaving the shed where the deceased lay dead, and who withstood thorough cross-examination, is reliable, and conviction can rest on a sole trustworthy eyewitness. (¶¶ 6, 8)
- Non-examination of the original informant, absence of independent witnesses, non-recovery of the weapons and contradictions as to the timing of the FIR are not grounds to acquit when there is direct, reliable eyewitness evidence; recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's acquittal set aside and the trial court's convictions and life sentences restored; the accused to surrender within six weeks.