A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appeal arises from conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 of two brothers for the fatal assault of Suraj; their father was initially convicted but later acquitted by the High Court. The prosecution case rested primarily on the ocular account of the victim’s mother, Lata Bai (PW-10), supported by an FIR, contemporaneous medical notation and recovery-at-instance seizures (axes, pipe) said to have been produced by the appellants. The informant (Santosh, PW-6) who lodged the FIR turned hostile at trial; several non-official witnesses and seizure witnesses likewise recanted.

The Trial Court convicted all three; the High Court affirmed the two sons’ convictions and acquitted the father. Before the Supreme Court the principal issues were:

(i) credibility of the sole eye-witness who was related to the deceased and whose s.161 CrPC statement was recorded belatedly;

(ii) effect of hostile witnesses and non-recovery of the exact weapon used;

(iii) parity with the acquitted co-accused (father). Applying accepted principles about proof beyond reasonable doubt, assessment of demeanour and corroboration, the Court held PW-10’s evidence in substance reliable notwithstanding minor embellishments and delay in recording her s.161 statement; the FIR and medical record furnished corroboration and the Investigating Officer’s seizure memos were proved despite seizure witnesses turning hostile.

The Court found motive and premeditation not proved but concluded the appellants caused death knowing their injuries were likely to be fatal; conviction changed from s.302 to Part I of s.304 IPC. Sentence was set off against ~10 years 3 months already undergone and a fine imposed.

Keywords: s.304 Part I IPC; Section 161 CrPC; eyewitness credibility; FIR corroboration; hostile witness; seizure at instance; reasonable doubt.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case records a rural homicide where immediacy and raw human conduct surged into legal contest: a morning assault left Suraj critically injured; he died two days later. The FIR was lodged within half an hour and identified the two sons and their father as assailants; medical notes prepared shortly thereafter recorded the names of the two sons. The investigative phase produced disclosure-at-instance recoveries and blood-stained implements; several seizure witnesses later recanted. At trial the informant recanted material parts of his FIR and was declared hostile. The prosecution thus primarily relied on the deceased’s mother (PW-10), an illiterate rustic woman who claimed to have seen the assault. The Trial Court convicted all three accused for murder; the High Court affirmed the sons’ convictions but acquitted the father.

The Supreme Court was constrained to weigh:

(a) the value of a sole, related eye-witness whose s.161 statement was belated and contained minor inconsistencies;

(b) the evidentiary worth of FIR and medical contemporanea where certain witnesses had turned hostile;

(c) whether the absence of established motive and the acquittal of the father mandated parity acquittals.

The Court reaffirmed accepted canons proof beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond all doubt), limited role of minor discrepancies, deference to trial court demeanour findings and the admissible corroborative force of contemporaneous records before concluding that the guilt of the two appellants was established but that the requisite mens rea for murder was not made out beyond doubt; conversion to Part I s.304 followed.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 23.09.2001 at about 7.00 a.m. Suraj was assaulted near his house; Santosh (PW-6) heard cries and filed FIR at ~7:30 a.m. naming Goverdhan, Rajendra and their father Chintaram. The injured Suraj was treated at local hospital and later at MMI where he died on 25.09.2001; cause: coma due to grievous head injuries, homicidal in nature. Dr. G.R. Agrawal (PW-1) recorded multiple incised and lacerated wounds. On 23.9.2001 disclosure statements by the two sons led to recovery of two blood-stained axes and an iron pipe from the father’s room; samples tested positive for blood. Investigating Officer prepared panchnama/spot map and recorded witnesses under s.161 CrPC.

The prosecution examined 15 witnesses; several non-official witnesses (including the informant) turned hostile; seizure witnesses admitted signing memos but claimed coercion. PW-10 (mother) deposed she saw all three assault her son, ran in to wake husband and later returned by then assailants had fled. Defence pleaded false implication, police pressure and non-corpus of credible independent eye-witnesses. Trial Court convicted all three under s.302 r/w s.34; High Court reversed only for the father and maintained convictions of the two sons. The State did not appeal the acquittal of the father.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the testimony of the deceased’s mother (PW-10), whose s.161 statement was recorded belatedly and who is an interested witness, can sustain conviction.
ii. What is the legal effect of the informant and seizure witnesses turning hostile on the prosecution’s case.
iii. Whether contemporaneous records (FIR, medical notes) corroborate the ocular account sufficiently to rule out reasonable doubt.
iv. Whether acquittal of the father necessitates acquittal of the sons on parity.
v. Whether, on the proved facts, conviction for murder (s.302) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304, Part I) is appropriate.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellants argued parity with the acquitted father: identical evidence could not convict the sons while acquitting Chintaram.
ii. The sole eye-witness (PW-10) was an interested, related witness whose s.161 statement was recorded only after five days; the delay and inconsistencies render her account unreliable. State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda relied upon.
iii. Major prosecution witnesses turned hostile (informant, seizure witnesses); recoveries at instance are tainted and medical notes cannot substitute for direct proof of assailant identity.
iv. Absence of motive and premeditation, plus improvements and embellishments in PW-10’s court testimony, create reasonable doubt.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. PW-10’s account was natural, detailed and withstood cross-examination; trial court’s advantage in assessing demeanour deserves deference.
ii. FIR was lodged within half an hour and is corroborated by medical recording — both indicate the sons as assailants; these contemporaneous documents reduce scope for fabrication.
iii. Hostility of witnesses does not erase their earlier signatures or negate the IO’s proved seizure memos; police testimony and forensic confirmation of blood on recovered articles corroborate recovery.
iv. There is sufficient evidence to establish culpable homicide at least under Part I s.304 IPC; absence of proved motive does not negate guilty knowledge that injuries inflicted were likely to cause death.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court engaged in a granular appraisal of oral and documentary material. It reiterated authoritative principles: proof beyond reasonable doubt is required but not impossibly exact; minor discrepancies and improvements do not automatically discredit eyewitness testimony (citing Leela Ram and Bharwada). The Court examined PW-6’s hostile testimony against his earlier FIR and concluded the FIR was proved by the SHO and could be treated as relevant circumstance. PW-10’s belated s.161 statement was tested against reason and context the Court accepted plausible explanation (tending to her son’s treatment, post-mortem) and noted defence did not elicit explanation from IO at trial.

Her demeanour, spontaneity and corroboration by medical notes, IO and other admissible material carried weight. Seizure memos were proved by IO despite seizure witnesses turning hostile; forensic confirmation of blood on recovered implements gave further support. The Court held the father’s role unclear and that his acquittal did not compel acquittal of the sons: evidential differences existed. On mens rea the Court found absence of proved premeditation/motive to convict for murder but held that the appellants inflicted bodily injuries likely to cause death while armed with deadly weapons; thus conviction was converted to Part I of s.304 IPC.

Considering time already undergone (10 years 3 months), the Court sentenced appellants to time served and imposed a compensation fine of ₹50,000 each payable to the deceased’s mother; default meant additional simple imprisonment. Appeal partly allowed accordingly.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that a sole interested eye-witness whose s.161 statement was delayed may still be relied upon where:

(i) minor contradictions exist but no material contradiction under s.162 to contradict her evidence;

(ii) explanation for delay is plausible and probed;

(iii) her testimony has the ring of truth in demeanour and spontaneous responses; and

(iv) there exists corroborative evidence (FIR, medical note, IO evidence, forensic tests) which together exclude reasonable doubt. Where motive/pre-meditation is not established but injuries inflicted are such as are likely to cause death and were inflicted knowingly while armed, the appropriate offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part I).

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court emphasized that criminal trials must be realistic, not hypertechnical; courts should weigh social realities and not allow trivial discrepancies to defeat otherwise trustworthy evidence. It cautioned against an over-expansive application of benefit of doubt that may erode accountability. Further comment stressed that testimony of police witnesses, properly tested, cannot be rejected merely because they are police. These observations serve as guidance on evidence appraisal rather than operative ratio.

c. GUIDELINES

• Delay in recording s.161 must be tested by trial court; plausible explanations neutralize prejudice to prosecution.

• Minor embellishments/improvements in ocular testimony do not, by themselves, render testimony unreliable; material contradictions alone are fatal.

• FIR and contemporaneous medical entries, once proved, serve as relevant corroboration even if informant turns hostile.

• Seizures proved by Investigating Officer, supported by forensic tests, can sustain evidentiary value despite hostile seizure witnesses.

• Acquittal of one co-accused does not automatically yield parity acquittal; evidence must be considered as to each accused’s role.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment correctly balances deference to trial-court appreciation of demeanour with appellate scrutiny, applying settled canons on reasonable doubt and corroboration. It reflects pragmatic criminal jurisprudence: courts must not be ensnared by trivial contradictions, nor abdicate duty to protect accused where reasonable doubt truly exists. Conversion from s.302 to s.304 Part I is legally coherent where intent to kill or extreme knowledge required for murder is not proved but the accused inflicted injuries likely to cause death while armed.

The decision underscores careful probing of s.161 delays, measured treatment of hostile witnesses, and recognition that contemporaneous entries (FIR/medical notes) may be dispositive corroborative pieces. For practitioners, the case reiterates advocacy points: (a) press for IO explanation when witness recording is delayed; (b) test material contradictions under s.162; (c) deploy forensic linkage to sustain seizures; and (d) resist mechanical parity pleas by highlighting differences in participation and admissible proof against each accused.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 657 (S.C.).

2. Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395.

3. State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96.

4. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

5. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217.

6. Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525.

7. State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114.

8. Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss.302, 304 Part I, 34).

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ss.161, 162, 313, 280).