Summary
The appellant’s murder conviction was sustained on consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by the injured victim’s identification to his sister and medical evidence. Minor contradictions did not undermine the substance of the account. Reporting the next morning was reasonably explained by the victim’s death after the evening assault, darkness and the police station being about 25 kilometres away.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness evidence and timing of the FIR justified disturbing concurrent findings of guilt.
Held
- Although factual reassessment was not ordinarily the Supreme Court’s function where the courts below had rejected the same arguments, the Court examined the evidence and found the conviction justified. (¶ 20–24)
- Two witnesses saw the appellant attack the deceased’s neck and nearby area with a gupti. The account of the victim being brought injured to another witness’s house, his naming the assailant to his sister and medical confirmation supported the prosecution. The testimony was natural and materially consistent; minor discrepancies did not warrant wholesale rejection. (¶ 25–31)
- The evening assault was followed by death some hours later, when it was dark. With the police station about 25 kilometres away, lodging the FIR the next morning did not constitute discrediting delay on these facts. (¶ 32–35)
Result
Appeal dismissed; concurrent conviction and sentence left undisturbed.