Summary
The Court upheld the surviving appellants’ convictions arising from a group attack in which the deceased’s hut was burned and he was killed with sickles. The eyewitness account was credible despite minor discrepancies, acquittal of other accused and an inconclusive medical estimate of injury timing. The evidence established the appellants’ membership of an unlawful assembly sharing the murderous common object; proof of a separate overt act by every member was unnecessary.
Issues
- Whether discrepancies and acquittal of other accused required rejection of the eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the evidence established common-object liability for murder under Section 149 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 141, 149 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applied unlawful-assembly liability for the murder committed in prosecution of the established common object. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Rejected the factual claim that recovery of all weapons rested on only one accused’s disclosure; separate disclosures preceded a common recovery memorandum. (¶¶ 43, 44)
Held
- The prompt FIR and corroborating testimony established the eyewitnesses’ presence. The explained delay in delivery to the Magistrate, inability to recall some parentage details and minor variations about the location did not undermine the prosecution account. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- The doctor’s possible estimate of injury timing was not conclusive and did not displace the otherwise accepted direct account of when the injuries were sustained. (¶¶ 32, 45)
- Rejection of part of a witness’s account, or acquittal of other accused, does not automatically require rejection of the entire testimony. Courts must carefully separate reliable evidence from falsehood; the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a mandatory rule in India. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- The recovery memorandum followed disclosures by several accused, rather than one disclosure arbitrarily attributed to others. A common recovery memorandum did not by itself cast doubt on the case. (¶¶ 43, 44)
- Common object can be inferred from the assembly’s conduct, weapons and surrounding circumstances without prior concert. Mere presence without the necessary common object is insufficient, but once Section 149’s ingredients are established, a specific overt act by each member need not be proved. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 51, 53)
- The evidence established the appellants’ common object to burn the hut and attack the deceased with sickles. The other appellants could not receive a lesser conviction merely because the deceased’s wife specifically named only the two who started the fire. (¶¶ 46, 47, 54)
Result
Appeals dismissed. Appellants on bail directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences.