Hostile witnesses do not invalidate a conviction where medical and forensic evidence conclusively establishes guilt.

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly shooting his elder brother, Ziyaur Rahman, with a licensed double-barrel 12-bore gun during a family dispute concerning the management of a poultry farm.

The informant-father’s fardbeyan stated that, after hearing gunshots, he found the appellant holding the gun and firing at the deceased, who was lying injured on a bed; the appellant allegedly fled after abandoning the weapon.

The police seized the gun, fired cartridges and a live cartridge, and the post-mortem disclosed six firearm entry wounds and death due to firearm injuries.

The forensic report opined that the fired cartridges had been discharged from the seized gun.

During trial, several family and village witnesses turned hostile, and the informant did not support the prosecution version in material respects, although he admitted his signatures on the fardbeyan and seizure documents.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 27 of the Arms Act, with concurrent sentences.

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained when the principal prosecution witnesses, including the informant, did not fully support the prosecution case at trial.

Whether the alleged discrepancy between preparation of the inquest report at 9:40 a.m. and recording of the fardbeyan at 10:15 a.m. created a delay or doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case.

Whether the circumstantial and scientific evidence—including the recovery and forensic examination of the firearm and cartridges, the medical evidence, and the immediate police information—established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning culpable homicide amounting to murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning the use of arms in contravention of the statutory requirements.

It held that the prosecution case does not fail merely because witnesses turn hostile; the Court may rely upon the reliable portions of their testimony and other corroborative evidence.

In assessing testimony, the Court relied on Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558, for the principles that evidence must be assessed as a whole, minor discrepancies do not ordinarily discredit an otherwise reliable version, and the principal considerations are the witness’s opportunity to observe the occurrence and the inherent probability or improbability of the account.

The Court further applied the principle that the significance of delay in lodging an FIR depends on the circumstances of each case; where the occurrence was promptly communicated to the police and the intervening investigative steps are satisfactorily explained, the timing of the formal fardbeyan does not necessarily create doubt.

The Court found that the prosecution’s foundational circumstances were proved notwithstanding the hostile witnesses.

The police received immediate information through Sanha No. 537, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, and seized the firearm and cartridges in the presence of the informant and the gun’s owner.

The deceased’s presence in a room on the first floor of the informant’s house, the absence of any apparent external access, and the recovery of the weapon supported the prosecution’s account that the assailant came from within the household.

The medical evidence established six firearm injuries, while the forensic report confirmed that the fired cartridges had been discharged from the seized double-barrel gun, which was functional and bore signs of prior firing.

The informant’s denial during trial was treated as an attempt to protect his son because he had admitted the recording of his fardbeyan, identified his signatures, and later filed a protest petition reiterating the original allegation against the appellant.

The Court rejected the delay argument because the chronology—prompt police information, inquest at 9:40 a.m., seizure at 10:00 a.m., and fardbeyan at 10:15 a.m.—was consistent with the investigative circumstances and did not indicate fabrication.

It held that the hostile testimony of some witnesses did not dislodge the prosecution case, and that the ocular, medical, documentary and forensic evidence collectively established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.

Finding no error in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences, including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act, to run concurrently.

A copy of the judgment along with the trial court records was directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court.