The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of seven persons in a 1988 double murder case arising out of a farmland boundary dispute, holding that the testimony of an injured eyewitness supported by medical evidence conclusively established the guilt of the accused. The Court reiterated that delay in lodging an FIR and non-recovery of weapons do not weaken the prosecution’s case when the ocular and medical evidence are consistent and reliable.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the appeals filed by Appellants challenging their conviction and life sentence under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court upheld the findings of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had earlier affirmed the trial court’s verdict convicting the accused for double murder.
The case stemmed from a violent confrontation on May 19, 1988, between two groups of relatives over the “mendh” (ridge) dividing their adjoining sugarcane fields. According to the prosecution, the accused attacked the opposite side with spades and lathis after a quarrel, inflicting fatal head injuries. A cross-case was lodged by the accused, but all members of the complainant’s side were acquitted. The trial court, however, convicted seven accused of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, in the companion case lodged by the complainant side.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the incident was a spontaneous “free fight” with no intention to kill, and therefore attracted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. They also relied on the three-day delay in the filing of the FIR and the non-recovery of weapons to challenge the prosecution’s credibility.
Rejecting these contentions, the Bench observed that the injured eyewitness was a “stamped witness” whose presence at the scene of occurrence was unquestionable and whose testimony was consistent with the medical evidence showing sharp-edged injuries on vital parts. Referring to precedents including Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719 and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Court held that the testimony of an injured witness carries a presumption of truth and should not be discarded unless it suffers from glaring contradictions.
Referring to Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444, the Court ruled that the attack in this case could not be treated as a “sudden fight” under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. The nature of the weapons used, the targeting of vital body parts, and the existence of prior enmity clearly demonstrated intention to kill, the Bench observed.
On the delay in filing the FIR, the Court held that it was satisfactorily explained as the complainant first took the injured to hospital. Referring to the State of H.P. v. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71, it noted that delay by itself is not fatal where the explanation is plausible. Similarly, non-recovery of the weapons was found immaterial in view of consistent medical and ocular evidence.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court affirmed the conviction and directed the appellants to surrender forthwith, while permitting them to seek remission as per state policy.
