A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Karulal & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh represents a reaffirmation of settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly concerning related witnesses, hostile witnesses, and the plea of false implication due to prior enmity. The Supreme Court examined whether conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained when the prosecution case substantially rested upon the testimony of three eyewitnesses, two of whom were closely related to the deceased, while several other witnesses had turned hostile.

The Court undertook a careful scrutiny of ocular evidence, medical testimony, and defence pleas suggesting accidental death and motivated false implication. Emphasising doctrinal consistency, the Court reiterated that relationship per se is not a ground to discard testimony, and that credible, cogent, and consistent evidence does not lose probative value merely because some witnesses resile from earlier statements. The Court also analysed the evidentiary impact of prior enmity, holding that such enmity may operate as a double-edged sword, furnishing both motive for crime and for false implication, and must therefore be evaluated contextually.

The judgment underscores the importance of corroboration between medical and ocular evidence and clarifies that minor inconsistencies or hostile testimonies do not vitiate an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The decision thus strengthens jurisprudence on collective liability under Section 149 IPC and affirms judicial caution without succumbing to hyper-technical disbelief of truthful witnesses .

Keywords: Related witness, Hostile witness, Section 149 IPC, Common object, Criminal evidence

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were convicted for forming an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and committing the murder of Madhavji in furtherance of a common object. The case provided the Court an opportunity to revisit fundamental principles relating to evaluation of evidence, particularly where eyewitnesses are family members of the deceased. The background reflects a rural setting marked by longstanding hostility between two groups, culminating in a violent daylight attack.

The appellants contended that the conviction was unsustainable due to the interested nature of witnesses, alleged contradictions, hostile testimonies, and an alternative defence theory of accidental death due to a fall in a nullah. The prosecution, on the other hand, relied upon prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness accounts, and strong medical corroboration. The judgment situates itself within a long line of precedents addressing evidentiary reliability and cautions against discarding truthful testimony on artificial grounds. It also contextualises the doctrine of common object under Section 149 IPC, highlighting collective criminality. The Supreme Court’s analysis demonstrates restraint, doctrinal continuity, and emphasis on substantive justice rather than technical acquittals .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On the morning of 18 August 1993, Madhavji was present in his agricultural field when he was brutally attacked by multiple accused armed with axes, swords, knives, and lathis. His son Bhawarlal (PW3) was grazing cattle nearby and rushed to the spot on hearing his father’s cries. He witnessed the accused assaulting the deceased. Shortly thereafter, the daughter of the deceased (PW12) and an independent witness (PW11) also arrived and saw the accused fleeing with weapons. The injured was placed on a bullock cart and taken towards Narayangarh police station, but succumbed to injuries en route.

The FIR was lodged within four hours, lending assurance to the prosecution narrative. The post-mortem revealed nine serious injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons, and death due to haemorrhagic shock. During trial, several witnesses turned hostile, and the defence projected a theory of accidental fall. The Trial Court rejected this defence, relying on medical evidence and the conduct of defence witnesses. The accused were convicted, and the High Court upheld the findings. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to determine whether these concurrent findings suffered from perversity or legal infirmity .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether conviction can be sustained primarily on the testimony of related eyewitnesses?
ii. Whether hostility of some prosecution witnesses weakens the entire prosecution case?
iii. Whether prior enmity renders the prosecution version unreliable?
iv. Whether medical evidence corroborated or contradicted the ocular version?
v. Whether common object under Section 149 IPC was established beyond reasonable doubt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the testimonies of PW3 and PW12, being children of the deceased, were inherently interested and unsafe to rely upon. It was argued that long-standing enmity motivated false implication. The defence emphasised that several witnesses had turned hostile, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution story. Reliance was placed on medical testimony suggesting the possibility of injuries from an accidental fall, contending that the prosecution failed to exclude this hypothesis. It was further urged that inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts weakened the chain of proof and that the common object necessary for invoking Section 149 IPC was not clearly established .

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State contended that the prosecution case was firmly supported by three consistent eyewitnesses, including one independent witness. It was argued that relationship does not disqualify a witness and that medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular account. The State highlighted prompt lodging of FIR and absence of material contradictions. It was submitted that hostile witnesses do not erode credible evidence and that prior enmity furnished a strong motive for the crime rather than false implication. The collective attack with deadly weapons clearly demonstrated a common object to kill .

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 148 IPC – Rioting armed with deadly weapon
ii. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
iii. Section 149 IPC – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship if found truthful and consistent. Relying on Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab and State of U.P. v. Samman Dass, the Court reiterated that close relatives are often the most natural witnesses. The presence of PW11 as an independent eyewitness further strengthened the prosecution case. The Court rejected the defence theory of accidental fall, observing that medical evidence only suggested a possibility and did not affirm such a cause.

The Court found strong corroboration between ocular and medical evidence. Addressing hostile witnesses, the Court held that prosecution does not fail merely because some witnesses resile, provided reliable evidence remains. The Court concluded that the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and intentionally caused fatal injuries, satisfying the ingredients of Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the case lies in the reaffirmation that credible testimony of related witnesses, if corroborated and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction. The Court held that enmity by itself does not discredit evidence and that hostile witnesses do not dilute the probative value of consistent ocular and medical evidence. The principle that common object can be inferred from conduct, weapons used, and nature of injuries was reiterated. The Court clarified that speculative defence theories cannot override cogent prosecution evidence. This ratio strengthens evidentiary jurisprudence by prioritising substance over form .

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that criminal trials must not be derailed by mechanical scepticism regarding family witnesses. It remarked that judicial experience indicates relatives are unlikely to shield real offenders. The Court also cautioned against exaggerated reliance on hostile testimony, noting social pressures and fear often influence witnesses in rural crimes. These observations, though not essential to the decision, provide guidance on pragmatic appreciation of evidence .

c) GUIDELINES

i. Evidence of related witnesses must be assessed on credibility, not relationship.
ii. Hostile witnesses do not automatically nullify prosecution case.
iii. Prior enmity must be evaluated contextually as motive.
iv. Medical evidence must be read in harmony with ocular evidence.
v. Common object under Section 149 IPC may be inferred from facts and conduct.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
ii. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Samman Dass, (1972) 3 SCC 201
iii. Khurshid Ahmed v. State of J&K, (2018) 7 SCC 429
iv. Sushil & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1995) Supp (1) SCC 363

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860