A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case arises from an altercation at the house of Than Singh over the worship at a deity installed on disputed land, where the appellants allegedly entered armed, assaulted the family and caused the death of the grandfather and injuries to three grandchildren. The Trial Court convicted three accused under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment (for s.302) and terms for the offences relating to bodily injury; the High Court confirmed conviction and sentence.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the central questions were whether ocular testimony of injured relatives can sustain a conviction for murder, whether the injuries and medical opinion permit only a lesser conviction (culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part II) or whether the ingredients of s.302 were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court analysed the credibility of eyewitnesses (all grandchildren and all themselves injured), motive and premeditation (entry armed with deadly weapons to the victim’s house), medical evidence (fatal head injury that could be inflicted by a hard blunt object or by a fall) and inconsistencies between Section 161 statements and trial depositions.

The Court held that relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not ipso facto render them interested; the contemporaneous injuries to these eyewitnesses and corroboration by a neighbour made their testimony reliable. Considering the overt acts, the deadly nature of weapons, the assailants being aggressors who trespassed and the fatal blow to a vital part of the body, the Court concluded that the prosecution proved murder under s.302 and dismissed the appeal.

Keywords: ocular evidence; interested witness; animosity; culpable homicide; deadly weapon; medical opinion; eyewitness injuries; reverse hit by axe; Section 302 IPC; Section 34 IPC

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The prosecution story records an incident of targeted aggression stemming from a dispute over proprietary rights to land on which a deity had been installed. One of the injured members of the household had visited that disputed site for worship. Angry at the worship, the person in possession of the land allegedly instigated a group of nine persons to go to the victims’ house.

Six were charged at trial and three of those appellants in this appeal were ultimately convicted for murder and related offences. The trial court found that the accused entered the house armed with an axe and a cutting weapon, initiated a scuffle and inflicted multiple injuries; the grandfather suffered two head injuries, one fatal that ultimately caused his death after 25 days in hospital. Three grandchildren (PWs 1–3) who gave ocular evidence were themselves injured in the same transaction.

A neighbour (PW4) arrived on hearing the commotion, witnessed the scuffle and accompanied the injured to hospital. The Trial Court convicted the three appellants under s.302 read with s.34 IPC and also for offences under ss.323 & 324 read with s.34 IPC for injuries to the grandchildren; the High Court confirmed both conviction and sentence. The appellants challenged the findings principally on the ground that the medical evidence did not show incised wounds and could support only accidental fall or non-murderous injury (thereby attracting s.304 Part II), and that the ocular testimony of related witnesses was inherently suspect.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to assess the reliability of related, injured eyewitness testimony, reconcile medical evidence with ocular accounts and determine whether intention/knowledge to cause death or injuries likely to cause death was proved.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On a date antecedent to the FIR the parties had a dispute about ownership/possession of land on which a deity was installed. One of the injured parties had gone to that disputed place to offer prayers. In reaction, a person in possession allegedly instigated nine accused to go to the victims’ home. The accused arrived at the house armed with an axe (farsa) and a cutting weapon (luhangi) and questioned the household members. A scuffle ensued within the house. The grandfather, Than Singh, received blows to the head and mouth; he suffered two head injuries and later died after about 25 days. Three grandchildren (PWs 1–3) were eye-witnesses who deposed that the first accused struck the deceased and also struck them; they each bore injuries consistent with their testimony and were medically examined (PW11 provided medical evidence).

PW4, a neighbour, reached the scene on hearing cries and corroborated the scuffle and presence of the accused armed with weapons and accompanied the injured to hospital. Nine accused were named in the FIR; six were charged at trial; one charged died during proceedings. The Trial Court convicted three accused under s.302/34 IPC (life imprisonment), and for injuries under ss.323 & 324/34 IPC; two others were tried for different offences and acquitted. The High Court upheld the trial court’s findings; appellants challenged primarily on absence of incised injuries and that the fatal injury could have been caused by an accidental fall.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether ocular testimony of witnesses who are related to the deceased and who themselves suffered injuries can be treated as reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction for murder under s.302 IPC?

ii. Whether the nature of medical injuries and the doctor’s opinion (that the fatal injury could have been caused by a fall or a hard blunt object) precludes a finding of murder and instead calls for conviction under s.304 Part II IPC?

iii. Whether entry of accused into the victim’s house armed with deadly weapons and the ensuing overt acts establish the requisite intention or knowledge for s.302 IPC?

iv. Whether contradictions between Section 161 statements and trial depositions regarding specific overt acts are fatal to the prosecution case?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that there was no premeditation or intention to cause death and no knowledge that injuries inflicted were likely to cause death. They argued that though the accused carried cutting weapons, the deceased had no incised injuries; the fatal injury could have been caused by an accidental fall as per the doctor’s testimony; contradictions between s.161 statement and trial depositions weaken the ocular account; at best the case attracts s.304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not s.302. The appellants also urged that relationship of witnesses and possible animosity over the disputed land rendered ocular evidence suspect.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that the injured eyewitnesses spoke in a consistent manner, that the accused trespassed into the victims’ house armed with deadly weapons and were the aggressors. There was no provocation from the victims. The presence of injuries on the ocular witnesses themselves and corroboration by PW4 strengthen the testimony. The fatal head blow to a vital part inflicted with the reverse side of an axe and the deadly nature of weapons showed intention/knowledge to inflict injuries likely to cause death; the medical opinion that a fall could cause the injury does not outweigh consistent ocular evidence. Thus the conviction under s.302/34 IPC should be sustained.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, after careful perusal of trial record, depositions and medical evidence, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Court began by addressing reliability of ocular witnesses who were grandchildren of the deceased. It reiterated the settled principle that relationship per se does not discredit testimony; the possibility of interested fabrication must be tested but cannot be presumed. The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the ocular witnesses were themselves injured in the same transaction an evidentiary circumstance that lends credibility because injured witnesses are unlikely to invent a story that would implicate others for harming them.

The Court analysed the animosity/motive aspect, acknowledging that motive is a double-edged sword: it can explain an accused’s propensity but may equally be an indicium of false implication. Given PW4’s independent testimony of animosity over the place of worship and his corroboration of the scuffle and weapons, the Court treated motive as contextual support rather than sole basis.

Turning to medical evidence, the Doctor described two head injuries on the deceased swelling and a lacerated wound and opined a fatal injury could be caused by a hard blunt object or an accidental fall. The Court held that medical possibility of a fall does not automatically negate ocular testimony, especially where eye-witnesses (injured themselves) gave a consistent account of a reverse hit by an axe to the head. Minor contradictions such as omissions in Section 161 statements regarding who inflicted specific overt acts were treated as expected variances during the heat of scuffle and not fatal to the core allegation.

On intention and the gravamen of s.302, the Court observed that the accused entered the house as aggressors, armed with deadly weapons, and inflicted blows on a vital part of the body. The deadly nature of weapons, trespass into the home, the role of the accused as aggressors, and the overt acts which caused grievous injuries culminating in death led the Court to hold that the necessary intention/knowledge for murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The record showed the fatal blow was to the head a vital part and the consequence (death after medical treatment) was directly traceable to that blow. Weighing the totality of ocular and medical evidence, the Court concluded that the elements of s.302 IPC were satisfied and dismissed the appeal.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on three interlinked findings:

(i) ocular testimony of injured witnesses is reliable where corroborated by medical evidence and an independent neighbour;

(ii) presence of deadly weapons, forcible entry and aggressor conduct demonstrate premeditation/knowledge to inflict injuries likely to cause death;

(iii) medical possibility of alternate causation (e.g., accidental fall) does not automatically override consistent and corroborated eyewitness testimony. Therefore, where overt acts establish a fatal blow to a vital part inflicted by assailants who entered armed and as aggressors, conviction under s.302 IPC follows.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated that motive of enmity must be approached cautiously while it lends context, it may also suggest tendency to falsely implicate; hence courts must scrutinize testimony with care. It observed that minor omissions or embellishments in Section 161 statements are not fatal when the material core of the ocular narrative is consistent and corroborated, particularly where witnesses suffered injuries themselves.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Relationship of eyewitnesses to the victim does not ipso facto render testimony unreliable; courts must evaluate contemporaneity, injuries to witnesses, and corroborative evidence.

2. Medical opinion offering multiple possible causes should be read in context with ocular testimony it cannot, by itself, negate a consistent eyewitness account.

3. Contradictions between statements under s.161 Cr.P.C. and deposition should be assessed for materiality; omissions about non-core details during a scuffle do not automatically discredit the prosecution.

4. Entry into a private dwelling armed with deadly weapons and use of those weapons in a manner causing grievous injury to vital parts constitute strong indicators of intention/knowledge required for s.302 IPC.

5. Motive of enmity is a contextual factor to be weighed but not treated determinatively without assessing independent corroboration.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces fundamental evidentiary principles applicable in homicide trials: the primacy of contemporaneous ocular testimony when it is coherent and corroborated; the limited standalone force of medical possibility of alternate causation; and the contextual import of the accused being aggressors armed with deadly implements. The appellate court’s role is to examine whether foundational elements trespass, overt acts, deadly means, injuries to multiple victims including witnesses, and corroboration by independent persons together make the prosecution case complete beyond reasonable doubt. The Court’s approach is cautious yet pragmatic: it does not mechanically reject related witnesses but subjects their testimony to close scrutiny; it treats medical ambiguities as factors to be balanced rather than definitive exculpatory proof. The decision thus affirms that where the narrative of aggression, weaponry and inflicted injuries to vital parts is established through credible, corroborated ocular evidence, a conviction for murder under s.302 IPC is legally sustainable despite some medical or formal inconsistencies.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Maukam Singh & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2025, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 336 : 2025 INSC 435.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 300, 304 Part II, 323, 324, 34.