Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-003647-003648 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 15721/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Sections 302 read with 148 and 149 IPC can be sustained on the basis of contradictory testimony of an interested eyewitness, hostile independent witnesses, and inconsistent medical evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The sole testimony of an interested witness must be subjected to close scrutiny, especially when material contradictions exist regarding the manner of occurrence and source of information. Failure to examine a material informant (the granddaughter) weakens the prosecution’s case. Hostile independent witnesses who deny seeing the assault further undermine reliability. Medical evidence that does not specify which weapon caused which injuries—and where the number or nature of wounds is inconsistent with the seized weapon—cannot corroborate a version that remains unestablished. In such circumstances, conviction cannot be recorded beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The informant’s son was found injured near a pond; she alleged seven persons tied his hands and assaulted him with sticks and stones; FIR under Sections 302/34 IPC was lodged; accused were charged also under Sections 148, 149 IPC and Section 506B IPC; trial court convicted and sentenced them; High Court affirmed; Supreme Court admitted appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts subordinate to the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court quashed convictions where the only eyewitness was the victim’s mother, whose deposition contained material contradictions on how and by whom the victim was assaulted.
- Failure to examine the informant’s granddaughter—who first reported the assault—constituted a significant gap in the prosecution’s case.
- Hostile turn of multiple independent witnesses negated corroboration of the eyewitness’s version.
- Medical evidence on incise wounds was held unreliable for want of specific weapon-injury correlation, despite seizure of a single stone.
- Lawyers can cite this ruling to challenge convictions based on uncorroborated family testimony and inconsistent medical reports.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Contradictory Eyewitness Deposition: PW-4 (the victim’s mother) gave inconsistent accounts about how the occurrence was communicated by her granddaughter and which accused wielded which weapon.
- Non-Examination of Material Witness: The prosecution failed to examine Indu Bai, who informed PW-4 of the assault, undermining the narrative’s reliability.
- Hostility of Independent Witnesses: PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 turned hostile, denying any assault or witnessing of the accused in the act, weakening the prosecution’s case.
- Memorandum Statements and Weapon Seizure: Although the Investigating Officer (PW-8) recorded production of seven sticks and one stone, absence of independent corroboration and hostile signatories rendered the recoveries doubtful.
- Inconsistent Medical Evidence: PW-7 (the doctor) noted three incise wounds but could not link specific wounds to the single triangular stone or sticks, making medical corroboration insufficient.
- Application of Evidentiary Principles: The Court applied the principle that interested-witness testimony must be closely scrutinized and cannot by itself sustain a conviction when contradicted and uncorroborated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused)
- PW-4 is an interested witness (mother of the deceased) and her testimony contains material contradictions.
- The crucial informant (granddaughter) was not examined.
- Independent witnesses turned hostile and denied witnessing the assault.
- Medical evidence does not clearly link injuries to seized weapons.
- Conviction is based on uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence, warranting acquittal.
Respondent-State
- PW-4 was an eyewitness who described the assault in detail.
- Medical evidence (post-mortem) corroborated the eyewitness version.
- I.O. recorded recovery of sticks and stone from the accused, matching the doctor’s statement that injuries could be caused by those weapons.
- No motive to falsely implicate the accused; lower courts rightly convicted.
Factual Background
On 14.07.2010, the victim went to a pond to bathe and was allegedly assaulted by seven persons with sticks and stones, his hands tied behind his back. His mother (PW-4) arrived after being informed by her granddaughter and found him fatally injured. An FIR under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC; the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted leave and set aside the convictions for lack of reliable evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 302 and 34 IPC: Punishment for murder by common intention.
- Section 148 IPC: Rioting armed with deadly weapon.
- Section 149 IPC: Liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for crimes committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 506B IPC: Criminal intimidation by a group.
- Section 313 CrPC: Recording of the accused’s statement; no substantive impact on conviction in this case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed