Evidence of Interested Witnesses Corroborated by Medical Proof Sufficient to Sustain Conviction for Murder and Rioting

On June 24, 2015, Umesh Pandey, a guard at Aganur High School, was assaulted and shot dead by several individuals outside the school gate

The motive was allegedly the deceased’s reporting of one Pankaj Kumar’s objectionable activities to the police

The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the deceased’s sons (PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7) who claimed to be eye-witnesses and alleged that the deceased made an oral dying declaration while being transported to the hospital

The Trial Court convicted four appellants—Rajesh Yadav, Fiddu Yadav, Ram Brat Yadav, and Jalendra Yadav—under Sections 302/149 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The appellants challenged this on grounds of interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and the unreliability of the oral dying declaration

1. Whether the prosecution established the existence of an "unlawful assembly" and "common object" under Section 149 IPC to hold all members vicariously liable for murder

2. Whether the alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased was reliable enough to form the basis of conviction

3. Whether the testimonies of interested witnesses (sons of the deceased) could be relied upon without independent corroboration

The Court applied Section 141 (Unlawful Assembly) and Section 149 (Vicarious Liability) of the IPC, emphasizing that "common object" can be formed on the spur of the moment and is determined by conduct and arms carried

It relied on *Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar* regarding the ingredients of Section 149

and *Subal Ghorai v. State of W.B.* to caution against roping in innocent bystanders

Regarding oral dying declarations, the Court cited *Arun Bhanudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra*, holding such evidence must be treated with extreme caution, particularly regarding the deceased’s medical fitness to speak

On interested witnesses, the Court followed *Gajula Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P.*, ruling that related-witness testimony is admissible if it has a "ring of truth" after close scrutiny

The Court scrutinized the medical evidence (PW-1) and found that the deceased suffered severe brain laceration and lung perforation

Consequently, it rejected the alleged oral dying declaration, noting that the deceased would not have been in a "fit condition" to name eight assailants while murmuring in a tempo

However, the Court accepted the direct eye-witness accounts of PW-5 and PW-6, noting that while they were "interested witnesses," their presence was natural and their testimony regarding the assault was consistent

The Court differentiated the roles: Fiddu and Rajesh were identified as the shooters participating in the murder

Conversely, for Ram Brat Yadav and Jalendra Yadav, the Court found evidence of physical assault (corroborated by a ruptured bladder) and rioting, but no specific evidence of sharing the common object to commit murder via firearm

It affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment of Rajesh Yadav and Fiddu Yadav under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

It modified the conviction for Ram Brat Yadav and Jalendra Yadav, acquitting them of murder (Section 302) but convicting them under Sections 147 (rioting) and 323 (causing hurt) IPC, sentencing them to one year and six months respectively, with the period already served to be set off