Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction for murder and attempted murder with common intention, finding the daughter’s testimony, injured child witness and corroborating evidence reliable. It removed only the direction barring remission for twenty-five years because no special reasons justified treating the appellant differently from the other convicted participants. The life sentence remained.
Issues
- Whether the evidence justified reversing the appellant’s acquittal.
- Whether denial of remission for twenty-five years was justified.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for murder and attempted murder with common intention was upheld on the evidence, while the additional twenty-five-year remission restriction was removed. (¶¶ 1, 5, 8–16)
Held
- The daughter’s evidence against her mother was entitled to weight in the circumstances. The appellant’s voluntary statement to her daughter admitting responsibility for the killings furnished corroboration as an extra-judicial confession. The other witness’s evidence and the recovered blood-stained articles supported the prosecution. (¶ 9–11)
- Witness testimony must be considered as a whole. Trivial omissions and discrepancies do not justify rejection unless they undermine the substance of the case. The injured child witness’s presence and injuries were established, she withstood extensive cross-examination, and the minor inconsistencies did not destroy her credibility. (¶ 11–14)
- The trial court had misappreciated the evidence; the High Court’s reasoned reversal of acquittal warranted no interference. (¶¶ 8, 15)
- There was no justification or special reason to single out the appellant, convicted with the aid of common intention, for denial of remission for twenty-five years. That restriction alone was set aside. (¶ 16–18)
Result
Appeal allowed only to remove the twenty-five-year bar on remission. Conviction and life imprisonment otherwise upheld.