Credible injured-witness testimony, corroborated by eyewitness and medical evidence, sustains murder convictions.

The appellants were convicted by the Special Court for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 307/34 IPC, arising from a knife assault on 20 December 2018.

The deceased, Birendra Sah, died from abdominal injuries; his brother Rajendra Sah (PW-2), the informant, also sustained injuries.

The trial court sentenced each appellant to life imprisonment for the murder offence and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the attempted-murder offence, with sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2, and disputed PW-2’s presence and the reliability of his injuries; the State and informant opposed the appeal.

The High Court considered the testimony of the witnesses, medical evidence, and investigation record.

1. Whether the evidence of PW-1 and injured informant PW-2 reliably established the appellants’ participation in the assaults, notwithstanding the defence challenges to their presence and credibility

2. Whether the medical and other evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case to sustain the convictions under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act

The Court considered the offences and convictions under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Its assessment applied the evidentiary principles that a credible injured witness’s testimony is not to be rejected without a substantial reason to doubt it, and that medical evidence may corroborate an account of assault.

It also assessed whether a witness had personal knowledge of the occurrence before treating that witness as an eyewitness.

The judgment cites no judicial precedents or separately articulates further statutory tests.

The Court rejected the challenge to PW-1’s evidence, finding that she described both assaults from her stated position at the door and identifying the appellants; her claim that police had not recorded her statement did not undermine her testimony, since the investigating officer testified that he had recorded it.

The Court treated PW-5 as a hearsay witness because he was milking a cow at the other end of the premises, had limited ability to see beyond a few steps, and said Rajendra had told him about the occurrence.

It accepted PW-2’s account as that of an injured witness and found that the defence had not elicited a material contradiction or put to him that he was absent or had self-inflicted his injuries.

The doctors’ evidence and injury reports supported the account of sharp-weapon injuries to the deceased and the injured informant.

Although the Court noted shortcomings in the investigation, it found they did not displace the prosecution evidence.

It directed that a copy of the judgment and the trial court record be sent to the trial court.