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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled principles |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 IPC can be sustained on the sole testimony of an interested witness with material contradictions and without independent corroboration. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 14.07.2010, the informant’s son was allegedly assaulted near a pond by seven accused with lathis and stones; FIR under Section 302/34 IPC was lodged. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302 read with 149 and Section 148 IPC; the High Court affirmed; appeal to the Supreme Court was filed challenging reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court quashed a murder conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness whose deposition contained material contradictions.
- Non-examination of the key informant (granddaughter) critically undermined the prosecution’s ocular case.
- Medical evidence that does not specify which weapon caused which injury cannot be treated as reliable corroboration.
- Production of weapons under Section 27 Evidence Act must be supported by independent, credible testimony.
- Reinforces that proof beyond reasonable doubt is mandatory and cannot rest on uncorroborated or internally inconsistent testimony.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- PW-4 (mother of the deceased) was the only eyewitness but gave contradictory accounts about how and by whom the injuries were inflicted.
- The granddaughter who first notified PW-4 was not examined, and independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) turned hostile.
- Investigating Officer (PW-8) testified to seizure of seven sticks and one stone, but no independent witness corroborated the procurement.
- Medical expert (PW-7) found three incise wounds but did not attribute them specifically to the seized stone or sticks.
- In light of these inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, conviction could not stand beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Accused)
- PW-4’s testimony was of an interested witness and contained material contradictions.
- Granddaughter who first saw the assault was not examined.
- Independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support seizure or ocular account.
- Medical evidence failed to link specific weapons to injuries.
- Prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent (State)
- PW-4 was an eyewitness who detailed the assault.
- Medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness account.
- Investigating Officer produced weapons said to be used.
- No motive for PW-4 to falsely implicate the accused.
- Trial and High Court correctly convicted under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC.
Factual Background
On 14.07.2010 at about 9:00 AM a grandson informed his grandmother (the informant) that persons belonging to caste-Teli were assaulting the informant’s son by a pond. The informant reached the scene to find her son tied and being battered with lathis and stones; he later died. FIR was lodged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. After trial, the accused were convicted under Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 IPC; their appeals in the High Court were dismissed, leading to this Supreme Court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 149 IPC: Liability of every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 148 IPC: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
- Section 506(b) IPC (additional charge against one accused): Criminal intimidation by threat to cause death or grievous injury.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms the settled requirement of independent corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses before sustaining a conviction.