Eyewitness Testimony of Injured Witnesses and Prompt FIR Displacement of Alibi Plea and Non-Recovery of Weapons

The appellants, Mukesh and Raju Balmik, were accused of being part of an unlawful assembly that waylaid the complainant party on 29.05.2014 in Datia, MP.

The motive was an existing enmity where the accused were pressuring the victims to turn hostile in a separate trial.

Raju and Mukesh allegedly fired gunshots at Badal (deceased), while co-accused Sunny assaulted Ajay (deceased) with a sword.

Two others, Vinod and Shiv Kumar, were injured.

Raju was arrested in 2017 and Mukesh in 2018 after being absconding.

The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 148, 302/149 (two counts), 323/149 (two counts) of the IPC and relevant sections of the Arms Act.

The appellants challenged these convictions, though their counsel failed to argue the matter at the appellate stage, leading the High Court to decide the matter on merits based on the record.

1. Whether the court can decide a criminal appeal on merits when the appellant's counsel refuses to argue despite repeated opportunities.

2. Whether the deaths of Badal and Ajay were homicidal and directly attributable to the injuries inflicted by the accused.

3. Whether the testimony of related and interested injured witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction.

4. Whether the plea of alibi taken by appellant Mukesh was established.

The court applied the rule from Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., which empowers the appellate court to dispose of an appeal on merits by perusing the record if the counsel is absent or non-cooperative.

Regarding related witnesses, it applied the principle that "related" is not equivalent to "interested," and testimony cannot be discarded solely on relationship if it is otherwise credible, as held in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and Raju v. State of T.N.

The court cited State of U.P. v. Naresh to emphasize that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status.

For the plea of alibi, it applied the burden of proof under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, noting it must be proved with "absolute certainty," as established in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar.

Constructive liability under Section 149 IPC was applied based on Lalji v. State of U.P.

The Court first justified deciding the case without oral arguments from the defense, citing the necessity of timely disposal and the counsel's persistent non-cooperation.

On merits, the Court found the deaths were homicidal; specifically for Ajay, it ruled that even if complications (septicemia/coma) led to death, the initial injuries to the vital part (head) made the accused liable for murder.

The Court validated the presence of the four eye-witnesses, noting that two (Vinod and Shiv Kumar) were "stamped" injured witnesses.

Discrepancies regarding the exact house where the incident began were dismissed as "minor variations" typical of rustic witnesses and not affecting the core prosecution case.

The prompt filing of the FIR (within 30 minutes) was seen as a safeguard against fabrication.

The plea of alibi by Mukesh was rejected because the medical documents produced were not authenticated by hospital registers, featured inconsistencies in dates, and were issued on a doctor’s private letterhead.

The long absconsion of 3-4 years was treated as an additional circumstance indicating guilt under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

The Court specifically confirmed the convictions under Sections 148, 302/149 (for deaths of Badal and Ajay), 323/149 (for injuries to Vinod and Shiv Kumar), and Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentences for both appellants.

The appellants were ordered to undergo the remainder of their life sentences.