A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The dispute arose from hostility regarding ownership of a place of worship, which escalated when the accused appellants, armed with deadly weapons specifically a farsa and a luhangi entered the house of the deceased Than Singh and confronted the victims. A scuffle ensued, during which the deceased suffered fatal head injuries and his grandchildren sustained multiple wounds.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under ss.302/34, 323, 324 r/w s.34 IPC, and the High Court affirmed those findings. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the ocular testimony of PWs 1–3, each of whom was an injured eyewitness and a grandchild of the deceased.

The Court reiterated that relationship alone does not render witnesses “interested,” especially when their presence at the scene is natural. The medical evidence showing a possibility of accidental fall did not dilute the prosecution’s case, because the ocular evidence consistently indicated a blow to the deceased’s head with the reverse side of an axe.

The Court rejected the defence plea for conversion to s.304 Part II IPC, holding that the appellants were aggressors who trespassed with premeditation, armed with lethal weapons, and inflicted injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No Exception to s.300 IPC applied. The conviction under s.302/34 IPC and accompanying sentences were upheld.

Keywords: Ocular testimony; Interested witnesses; Injured witness rule; Enmity; Deadly weapons; Reverse hit by axe; Medical corroboration; Section 300 Exceptions; Intention; Common intention.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from a long-standing discord over a place of worship installed on disputed land, animosity that played a central role in the transaction leading to the homicide. The prosecution case, as accepted by the Trial Court and High Court, established that one of the injured witnesses had visited the disputed land to offer prayers.

This act provoked anger in the accused, who, instigated by the person asserting possession over that land, travelled to the residence of the deceased Than Singh equipped with deadly weapons an axe and a cutting weapon. The Supreme Court carefully considered this context, since motive drawn from animosity may operate both as a factor supporting and potentially undermining the prosecution narrative.

The Court noted that while enmity can supply motive for the crime, it may equally generate suspicion of false implication. This duality required meticulous scrutiny of ocular and medical evidence.

The background also reveals the procedural trajectory: nine accused were initially named in the FIR, though only six were charged, and eventually three appellants stood convicted under s.302/34 IPC for homicide and under ss.323, 324 r/w s.34 IPC for causing injuries to the grandchildren of the deceased. The death of the deceased occurred 25 days after hospitalization, a fact used by the defence to argue reduction of the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

However, the prosecution maintained that the fatal blow to the head inflicted by the reverse side of the axe demonstrated intention within the meaning of s.300 IPC. The Supreme Court revisited this background to determine whether the High Court correctly affirmed both conviction and sentence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts, as borne out from the depositions of PWs 1 to 4 and the medical testimony of PW11, reveal that the grandchildren of the deceased PWs 1, 2 and 3 were present in their grandfather’s home when the accused arrived. The appellants were armed with a farsa and a luhangi, both deadly weapons capable of causing fatal injuries.

The confrontation originated from the prior act of PW3 visiting the disputed land to worship the deity installed there. The accused confronted the family, questioned them, and a scuffle broke out. During this altercation, the deceased sustained two major injuries on his head: swelling extending from the left ear to the parietal region, accompanied by bleeding from the ear and nostrils, and a lacerated wound on the front-middle portion of the head as described by PW11.

Each of the grandchildren suffered multiple injuries as well. PW1 sustained incised wounds on the head and nose, swelling on the forearm, and contusions on the knee. PW2 suffered abrasions on the shoulder, thumb and leg. PW3 received an incised wound above the right ear and abrasions on the knee and finger.

The defence sought to use the lack of incised injury on the deceased to argue accidental fall; however, the prosecution relied on the consistent statements about a blow delivered using the reverse side of an axe. PW4, the neighbour, corroborated hearing distress sounds, seeing the scuffle, and assisting in taking the injured to the hospital.

The deceased was hospitalized and succumbed to his injuries after 25 days, which the appellants attempted to use to diminish their culpability. The Trial Court nonetheless found this sequence sufficient to establish homicidal death attributable to the appellants acting with common intention under s.34 IPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the conviction of the appellants under ss.302/34 IPC was justified in light of the ocular and medical evidence?
ii. Whether the testimonies of related and injured witnesses (PWs 1–3) could be relied upon without suspicion of interestedness?
iii. Whether the facts warranted conversion of the offence to s.304 Part II IPC due to lack of intention or due to possibility of accidental fall?
iv. Whether the case attracted any Exception to s.300 IPC, thereby reducing liability to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellants argued that there was no evidence of premeditation or intention to cause death. They stressed that the accused carried cutting weapons, yet no incised injury was found on the deceased, which they argued indicated absence of homicidal intent.

They relied on the doctor’s testimony acknowledging that the fatal injury could have been caused by an accidental fall, suggesting the possibility of an unintentional consequence of the scuffle. The appellants attempted to create reasonable doubt by highlighting omissions in the Section 161 CrPC statements of PWs 1–3 regarding the alleged axe blow.

They urged the Court to accept that at best the incident amounted to culpable homicide under s.304 Part II IPC, as there was no intention and at most knowledge could be attributed. The delay of 25 days in death was put forth to dilute the causal chain between the blow and the eventual demise.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State countered that the presence of injured eyewitnesses natural witnesses who were present in their own home provided unimpeachable evidence. They argued that the accused trespassed into the victims’ home, armed with deadly weapons, proving premeditation.

The prosecution emphasized that the deceased died as a direct consequence of the blow to his head, as the immediate injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts. The State asserted that the absence of incised injury was immaterial because the witnesses described a reverse hit by the axe.

They further submitted that the defence narrative of accidental fall was contradicted by the sustained injuries on all victims. They maintained that the intention to cause injuries likely to cause death could clearly be inferred from the weapons used, the site of injury, and the aggressors’ conduct.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
ii. Section 300 IPC – Definition of murder and Exceptions (considered but rejected by the Court).
iii. Section 304 IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Part II relied on by appellants).
iv. Sections 323 & 324 IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt and hurt by dangerous weapons.
v. Section 34 IPC – Common intention.
All provisions are referenced in the judgment itself.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court examined the entire depositions and concluded that the testimony of PWs 1–3 was consistent, natural, and credible. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely for relationship; instead, their presence at the scene is often more probable.

The Court found that each witness had sustained injuries, which strongly bolstered their reliability. The testimonies described the accused entering the deceased’s home armed with deadly weapons and initiating the confrontation, confirming them as aggressors. The Court found that their arrival with weapons demonstrated premeditation.

Medical evidence did not negate the prosecution case. The doctor acknowledged the injury could result from a blunt object; the reverse side of an axe constituted such an object. The Court held that the possibility of accidental fall does not override clear and consistent ocular testimony.

The injuries to the deceased were found to be on vital parts of the body the head making the fatality foreseeable. The Court stated that discrepancies between Section 161 statements and depositions did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses because minor omissions are common in scuffle situations where victims are under attack.

The Court ruled that none of the Exceptions to s.300 IPC applied, as this was not a case of grave and sudden provocation or mutual fight initiated by the victims. Instead, the accused deliberately trespassed with weapons and assaulted the occupants.

The Court reaffirmed that the intention was evident from the choice of weapon and the place of injury. Consequently, the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The foundational ratio of the judgment rests on the principle that credible injured eyewitness testimony prevails over hypothetical interpretations of medical evidence. The Court emphasised that minor inconsistencies or omissions in earlier police statements do not justify discarding trustworthy eyewitness accounts.

The Court reinforced the evidentiary rule that relationship does not make a witness “interested,” nor does it impair reliability when the presence of such witnesses is natural at the location of the incident.

The Court clarified that intention for the purpose of s.300 IPC can be inferred from the nature of weapons used, the manner of assault, and the part of the body targeted. The use of deadly weapons such as an axe and the infliction of a forceful head injury indicated intention or knowledge of likely fatal consequences. The Court further held that mere possibility suggested by medical evidence cannot supersede direct ocular evidence, especially where all material aspects are consistent.

The incident did not fall within any Exception to s.300 IPC, as the accused were aggressors who trespassed and initiated the confrontation. There was no grave and sudden provocation nor a situation of free fight. Therefore, the offence clearly fell within s.302 IPC as murder committed with common intention under s.34 IPC.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court made observations reinforcing the principle that enmity is a double-edged weapon. While it may provide motive for the crime, it also may give rise to false implication. Therefore, courts must examine evidence with heightened scrutiny.

This observation contributes to the larger jurisprudential framework in criminal law concerning the evaluation of testimony where parties share strained relations.
Another noteworthy remark was the Court’s reiteration that injured witnesses enjoy a special evidentiary status because they seldom falsely implicate someone for an assault in which they themselves suffered harm. Such witnesses are considered more dependable, not less.

The Court also observed that discrepancies about whether the blow was delivered with the sharp or reverse side of the axe are common where scuffles occur. This comment underscores a broader understanding in criminal adjudication that approximates rather than exactness characterizes human perception under stress.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Courts must not reject testimony solely because witnesses are related to the victim; rather, the natural presence of such witnesses increases evidentiary credibility.
ii. Injured eyewitnesses hold enhanced reliability, and their testimony should ordinarily be accepted unless strong reasons exist for disbelieving them.
iii. Medical opinions suggesting alternative possibilities cannot override consistent ocular testimony unless the two are irreconcilably contradictory.
iv. Minor omissions in Section 161 CrPC statements cannot be magnified to discredit otherwise consistent court testimonies, especially in chaotic scuffle situations.
v. A blow inflicted with the reverse side of a sharp weapon may still demonstrate intention or knowledge under s.300 IPC, depending on the part of the body targeted.
vi. Enmity must be approached cautiously as it may indicate motive or possible false implication, requiring careful judicial balance.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reflects a principled reaffirmation of long-standing doctrines governing the evaluation of evidence in murder trials. By emphasizing the credibility of injured eyewitnesses and the limits of medical speculation, the Court has strengthened the jurisprudence that guards against acquittals based on conjecture rather than evidence.

The Court’s insistence that intention can be inferred from weapon, site of injury, and conduct ensures that criminal responsibility cannot be diluted merely because the fatal blow did not produce a classic incised wound.

The decision is consistent with earlier Supreme Court approaches that balance ocular and medical evidence, giving precedence to the former when credible. The detailed assessment of relationship-based witness credibility also aligns with established rules that familial connections do not automatically render testimony unreliable.

The case further clarifies the unavailability of s.304 Part II IPC where the aggressors arrive armed, trespass into the victim’s home, and inflict injuries on vital organs. The Court’s attention to motive and its double-edged nature encourages cautious yet fair analysis by trial courts. Overall, the judgment strengthens doctrinal clarity in the domains of evidence evaluation, homicide classification, and common intention under s.34 IPC.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 300, 304, 323, 324, 34.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 (contextual reference).