Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the murder convictions of three appellants, including the High Court’s reversal of two acquittals. A cryptic initial telephone message was not the FIR; the later detailed complaint was. Consistent eyewitness accounts established the appellants’ participation and common intention through assault, exhortation, pursuit and joint departure. The absence of identifiable injuries from their fist blows and kicks did not negate that evidence. The trial court had ignored material testimony for trivial reasons, justifying appellate interference.
Issues
- Whether the first telephone intimation constituted the FIR and discredited the later detailed complaint.
- Whether absence of corresponding injuries excluded common-intention liability.
- Whether reversal of the two acquittals was justified.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The cumulative evidence established participation in the shared murderous design despite absence of separately attributable injuries from the appellants’ blows. (¶¶ 28-34, 38-39)
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The incomplete telephone intimation did not constitute the FIR; the later complaint supplied the identities and details of the incident. (¶ 21-25)
Held
- A cryptic telephone message giving incomplete information about an attack does not invariably constitute an FIR. Here the initial message omitted the victim’s identity, assailants’ names and precise location; the later detailed complaint constituted the FIR. Omission of additional assailants from the initial report did not by itself falsify the prosecution. (¶ 21-25)
- Independent eyewitness evidence consistently established the appellants’ active role, pursuit and exhortations. The absence of corresponding wounds attributable to fists or kicks did not diminish their participation. Shared intention may arise at the spot and be inferred cumulatively from conduct; each participant need not inflict a fatal or identifiable injury. (¶ 28-34)
- An appellate court may review all evidence on an acquittal appeal, while respecting the reinforced presumption of innocence and the trial judge’s opportunity to assess witnesses. Ignoring material evidence or reaching irrational findings permits interference. The trial court’s rejection of compelling eyewitness testimony for trivial reasons was unreasonable, and the High Court correctly reversed the acquittals. (¶ 35-39)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs. High Court convictions of all three appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC affirmed.