Summary
Convictions for a coordinated fatal axe-and-knife attack were upheld on consistent injured-eyewitness testimony supported by medical and other evidence. Minor discrepancies and failure to seize the motorcycle or a victim’s gold chain did not undermine the proved core. Identification was credible despite evening darkness because the witnesses knew the accused and available lighting supported recognition. The medical evidence did not contradict the account of the initial blow.
Issues
- Whether injured-eyewitness testimony was undermined by discrepancies, darkness or the alleged absence of a head injury.
- Whether investigative omissions created reasonable doubt about the jointly committed attack.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Upheld murder convictions based on the proved participation and common intention of all three accused. (¶¶ 18, 20-22)
Held
- The two injured witnesses naturally accompanied the deceased on the motorcycle. Their evidence was trustworthy, their injuries were not self-inflicted according to medical opinion, and lengthy cross-examination did not displace their account. (¶ 17-18)
- The motorcycle headlight and light from the adjoining field, together with prior familiarity among people of the same village, supported identification. The evening hour did not create the suggested identification doubt on this evidence. (¶ 17)
- The injury on the lower back of the head supported the axe-blow account; an attack on a moving motorcyclist need not strike the centre of the head. Medical evidence supported the weapons and ante-mortem injuries, and serology linked blood on the deceased’s and the first two accused’s clothes. (¶ 18)
- Injured-witness evidence requires due weight and cogent reasons for rejection. Material contradictions affecting the prosecution’s core matter; minor discrepancies do not justify discarding otherwise credible testimony. Failure to seize the motorcycle or gold chain did not undermine the consistent account here. (¶ 19-20)
- The evidence proved all three accused’s participation with common intention beyond reasonable doubt. The prior quarrel and animosity supplied motive, and no factual or legal error warranted disturbing concurrent convictions. (¶ 20-22)
Result
All three criminal appeals dismissed; convictions and the High Court’s disposition of sentence affirmed.