Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittals on the major charges, finding that minor variations did not discredit the injured eyewitness and that the defence injuries did not establish a free fight. It nevertheless gave a limited benefit of doubt about premeditation: murder was altered to Section 304 Part I and attempted murder to Section 308, with seven and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, concurrently. The remaining trial findings and sentences were retained.
Issues
- Whether inconsistencies with a police statement justified discarding the injured eyewitness’s testimony.
- Whether the record supported homicide liability and, if so, the applicable offence and sentence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 161 and 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Police statements were not substantive evidence and could be used within the prescribed limits for contradiction, rather than as an independent replacement narrative. (¶ 16–22)
- Sections 145 and 155, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Proved inconsistencies had to be assessed for their actual effect on credibility; minor variations did not erase the reliable core of the injured witness’s account. (¶ 19–22)
- Section 300, Exception 4; Sections 304 Part I and 308, Indian Penal Code, 1860A limited doubt about premeditation supported culpable homicide and its attempt rather than murder and attempted murder, with the corresponding reduced sentences. (¶ 30–32)
Held
- The injured eyewitness’s presence was natural and her account of the assault remained reliable under lengthy cross-examination. Variations about the incident’s beginning did not justify wholesale rejection of her evidence. (¶¶ 7–11, 16–22, 26–29)
- A Section 161 statement is not substantive evidence. Contradictions must be properly used and evaluated; inconsistency alone does not necessarily destroy credibility on every material issue. (¶ 18–22)
- The defence medical evidence was discredited, and the minor or doubtful injuries did not justify the High Court’s free-fight theory. Other witnesses, recoveries and medical evidence supported the prosecution’s reliable core. (¶ 23–29)
- The surrounding circumstances nevertheless left a limited doubt about a premeditated attack. On its record-specific assessment the Court applied Exception 4 and altered the major offences to Sections 304 Part I and 308. (¶ 30–31)
- Seven years under Section 304 Part I and three years under Section 308 were imposed concurrently, with credit for custody already undergone. The other trial findings and sentences remained. (¶ 31–32)
- Proceedings against the deceased accused abated. The surviving accused were required to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining terms. (¶ 32)
Result
Both appeals allowed; High Court order quashed. Trial murder and attempt findings altered to Sections 304 Part I and 308 with seven and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, concurrently; other trial findings and sentences retained. Case against deceased accused abated; survivors to surrender within four weeks, with custody credit.