Summary
Convictions arising from a concerted armed attack were upheld on reliable eyewitness evidence. Repeated blows to the head established each assailant’s intention to kill. Relationship to the deceased and omission of an earlier injury report did not discredit the injured eyewitness on these facts; recovery evidence was unnecessary to the conclusion.
Issues
- Whether eyewitness and injury evidence established murder despite the defence objections.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860The murder convictions and Chandrasekar’s additional hurt conviction were left undisturbed. (¶¶ 1, 14–16)
Held
- The armed arrival, threatening utterances and repeated head injuries proved preparedness and individual murderous intent. Common-intention questions did not require separate determination on these facts. (¶¶ 8–9, 14)
- The injured witness’s presence and injuries were not effectively challenged. The missing first hospital report was a lacuna, but did not establish fabrication or destroy otherwise credible testimony. (¶ 9–11)
- Family relationship called for scrutiny rather than automatic rejection. Read together, the eyewitness accounts were reliable, making disputed confession and weapon-recovery corroboration unnecessary. (¶ 12–15)
Result
Appeals dismissed; convictions maintained, bail bonds cancelled and immediate surrender directed to serve the remaining sentences.