Consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and oral dying declaration sustains murder conviction.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 131/2016.

The prosecution case was that, on 17 December 2015, the appellant assaulted his wife at her parental home with an iron pipe after she had undergone a caesarean delivery resulting in a stillborn child. The victim was taken to hospital but died on the way.

Her father lodged the FIR on 18 December 2015, following which the appellant and his mother were charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC.

The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/304-B read with Section 34 IPC, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted his mother for want of sufficient evidence.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the victim’s two sisters, who claimed to have witnessed the assault, the medical evidence showing eleven head injuries including a depressed fracture, and the alleged oral dying declaration of the victim.

The appellant denied the allegations and contended that the injuries were self-inflicted.

1. Whether the testimony of PW Nos. 2 and 3, the alleged eyewitnesses, was reliable and sufficient to establish that the appellant assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe.

2. Whether the medical evidence, statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the alleged oral dying declaration corroborated the prosecution’s ocular account.

3. Whether the appellant’s defence that the deceased had inflicted the injuries upon herself created a reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

4. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC required appellate interference.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, governing culpable homicide amounting to murder, and Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., under which an appeal lies against a conviction by a Sessions Court.

In assessing eyewitness testimony, it relied on Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shakh v. State of Maharashtra, which holds that evidence must be assessed as a whole; minor discrepancies concerning trivial details do not justify rejection unless they affect the core of the prosecution case.

The Court also considered the principle of res gestae and immediate statements connected with the occurrence, referring to Atul Hazarika v. State of Assam.

It treated the oral dying declaration as legally capable of supporting a conviction where its truthfulness and the declarant’s fitness are established, while observing that corroboration is a rule of prudence, relying on Heikrujum Chaoba Singh v. State of Manipur.

Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were treated as corroborative of the witnesses’ testimony rather than as substantive evidence independently proving the occurrence.

The Court found that PW Nos. 2 and 3 gave substantially consistent accounts: both stated that they heard the sound of an iron object striking the victim, came outside, and saw the appellant assaulting her on the head with an iron pipe.

Their evidence remained intact during cross-examination and was consistent with their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The medical evidence materially corroborated their account, as the doctor found eleven ante-mortem injuries caused by blunt force, including multiple lacerations and a depressed fracture in the occipital region, consistent with an iron pipe assault.

The statements made by the victim’s sisters immediately after the occurrence to neighbours were treated as connected contemporaneous evidence supporting the prosecution version.

The alleged oral dying declaration—that the appellant and his relatives assaulted the victim over the demand for a male child and money—was considered corroborative of the eyewitness and medical evidence.

The self-infliction theory was rejected because it was unsupported by the surrounding evidence and was internally weakened by the mother’s statement that the victim had not assaulted herself; the appellant’s version was also inconsistent with the eyewitness and medical evidence.

Accordingly, the Court found no material infirmity warranting interference with the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence.

It held that the consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, corroborative Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, and oral dying declaration established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the deceased’s fatal head injuries with an iron pipe.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, together with a fine of ₹10,000 and three months’ further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment, were upheld.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the records were directed to be returned.