Credible injured-eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence sustains a murder conviction.

On 1 May 2005, the deceased, Sibu Tanti, was allegedly assaulted near the houses of the appellant and Defence Witness No. 1. The prosecution case was that the appellant struck Sibu on the head with an axe, while other accused assaulted Sibu’s siblings, PW-4 and PW-5. Sibu and the injured witnesses were taken to Nagaon Civil Hospital, where Sibu died on 3 May 2005.

The FIR was lodged on the same day, with the informant explaining the delay on the ground that he was attending to his injured children and arranging medical treatment.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 were convicted under Section 323 IPC, while the remaining charges against the accused were rejected or resulted in acquittal.

The appellant challenged his conviction, relying on alleged discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, the nature of the injuries, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation based on an alleged attempted rape of DW-1 by the deceased.

1. Whether the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses, PW-4 and PW-5, reliably established that the appellant inflicted the fatal axe blow on the deceased, despite the alleged discrepancies concerning the place of occurrence and the number of injuries.

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, so that the offence would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, which prescribes punishment for murder, and considered Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, under which culpable homicide is not murder where the offender, deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes death.

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, for the principle that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries special evidentiary weight because the witness’s presence at the occurrence is thereby corroborated and such a witness is unlikely to falsely implicate another person.

It also relied on Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114, for the rule that unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging an FIR may create suspicion, although a plausible explanation can satisfactorily account for the delay.

The Court further noted that the testimony of close relatives is not to be rejected merely on that ground unless affected by material contradictions or inconsistencies, referring to Esakkimuthu v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 880.

The Court found that PW-4 and PW-5 were injured eyewitnesses whose injuries were medically corroborated by PW-7, and whose account that the appellant struck the deceased with an axe was consistent with the post-mortem evidence of a sharp cut injury, skull fracture, and intracranial bleeding recorded by PW-8.

The alleged discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence was resolved by reading the FIR and oral testimony together: the assault occurred on the road between the relevant houses, rather than inside the deceased’s house, as clarified by PW-4, PW-5, and the sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer.

The presence of only one fatal injury did not weaken the prosecution case because the axe blow attributed to the appellant was independently corroborated by the eyewitnesses and medical evidence.

The delay in the FIR was held satisfactorily explained by the informant’s need to care for the injured victims and arrange treatment for the deceased.

Finally, the Court rejected the plea of grave and sudden provocation: the alleged attempted rape was an unsubstantiated defence allegation, was not reported contemporaneously, and did not explain the appellant’s assault upon PW-4 and PW-5.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default, were affirmed. The appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.