Credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction.

On 23 January 2015, Kaushal Kumar Kunwar and Bambam Chaudhary were travelling on a motorcycle near Tata Brick Kiln on NH-31, Bhagalpur, when a white Bolero allegedly hit their motorcycle.

The prosecution alleged that several persons alighted from the vehicle and opened fire; according to the informant, Rinku Kunwar fired at Bambam Chaudhary, while other accused fired at Kaushal Kumar and Bambam. Kaushal died at the spot, and Bambam subsequently died from his firearm injuries.

The informant’s fardbeyan was recorded at Naugachia Hospital, resulting in registration of Bihpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2015 under, inter alia, Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Trial Court initially framed charges concerning the murder of Kaushal Kumar and subsequently altered the charges after Bambam also died, charging the appellant under Sections 326, 307, 302, 427, 341 and 120B of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.

Fifteen prosecution witnesses were examined, including alleged eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6, the doctors who conducted the post-mortems, and the investigating and formal witnesses.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life, with a fine of ₹50,000 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

Whether the ocular testimony, particularly that of PW-4 Rajesh Chaudhary and PW-6 Shrawan Kumar, reliably established the appellant’s participation in the shooting and the date, time, manner and occurrence of the murders.

Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses and the deficiencies in the investigation created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt.

Whether circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence, but allegedly not specifically put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., could be relied upon against him.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court required appellate interference under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, which criminalises murder, together with Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., governing appeals against convictions by a Court of Session, and Section 313 Cr.P.C., requiring the accused to be given an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence.

The Court relied on the principle that credible ocular testimony can sustain a conviction when it is consistent with the medical evidence, and that minor discrepancies do not warrant rejection of otherwise trustworthy evidence. In this regard, it relied on Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174, concerning the relationship between ocular and medical evidence.

The appellant relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, for the proposition that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. should not be used against him; the Court, however, found that the relevant circumstances had been put to the appellant.

The Court rejected PW-1 as unreliable because his account contained material inconsistencies regarding the persons travelling on the motorcycles and the vehicle allegedly struck by the Bolero, and the Investigating Officer stated that PW-1’s statement was hearsay.

It nevertheless accepted PW-4 and PW-6 as credible eyewitnesses. Their evidence consistently placed the appellant at the scene, attributed a firearm assault to him, and described the Bolero’s collision, the firing and the accused persons’ escape.

The Court held that the evidence of PW-4 was corroborated by the Investigating Officer’s account of his earlier statement and that no material contradiction had been established.

The post-mortem evidence independently confirmed that both deceased persons suffered fatal firearm injuries, including close-range gunshot injuries to the head, thereby corroborating the prosecution’s account of the occurrence.

Although the defence highlighted defects in the investigation, including the failure to examine independent witnesses, deficiencies in the seizure and inquest documentation, absence of a sketch map, and failure to collect certain treatment and vehicle-related records, the Court treated these as insufficient to discredit the direct testimony of PW-4 and PW-6.

The Court further held that the circumstances relied upon had been put to the appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, and therefore the principle invoked from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda did not assist him.

It found no apparent error in the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction or order of sentence and dismissed the appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s life, with a fine of ₹50,000 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default, were affirmed; the appellant, already in custody, was directed to serve the remaining sentence.