Summary
The Court set aside Mohd. Jamil’s conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC because the eyewitnesses’ credibility was seriously doubtful, the recoveries were unproved, and there was prior enmity. His conviction and six-month sentence under Sections 323/34 were maintained; the State’s appeal against Mohd. Yunus’s acquittal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the evidence safely supported Mohd. Jamil’s conviction for murder with common intention under Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Mohd. Yunus of murder under Sections 302/34 IPC while maintaining his conviction for hurt under Sections 323/34 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 323 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court found it unsafe to sustain Mohd. Jamil’s murder conviction under Sections 302/34 on the doubtful eyewitness evidence and unproved weapon recovery, but maintained his Sections 323/34 conviction and sentence. It declined to disturb Mohd. Yunus’s acquittal under Sections 302/34. (¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- Where the prosecution’s principal eyewitnesses have been found in a separate trial to have made material contradictions and improvements, and their credibility is seriously doubtful, it is unsafe to sustain a murder conviction on their testimony without strong corroboration, particularly where prior enmity exists. The recoveries of the lathi and kulhari were also not proved on this record. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Mohd. Jamil’s conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC was set aside, but his conviction and six-month sentence under Sections 323/34 IPC were maintained. The State’s appeal against Mohd. Yunus’s acquittal under Sections 302/34 IPC was dismissed. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2012 was partly allowed, setting aside Mohd. Jamil’s murder conviction while maintaining the hurt conviction and sentence; his sentence was already undergone and his bail bonds were discharged. Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2012 was dismissed.