Individual murder conviction sustained despite failure to prove unlawful assembly or common object.

On 27 August 2008, members of the complainant party were travelling in a tractor towards Chirula Police Station after meeting the Superintendent of Police regarding a political dispute and a no-confidence motion against the village Sarpanch. The prosecution alleged that a large armed group, including the appellants, chased the tractor, fired several shots, punctured its tyre, and assaulted the occupants. Sunil, the tractor driver, sustained severe head injuries and died; several other persons allegedly suffered injuries.

The Trial Court convicted Yashpal Singh, Ashok Yadav, Jaipal Singh, Lakhan Giri, Rajesh Yadav, Ram Kishan and Dinesh Giri under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. Several co-accused were acquitted. During the appeals, the appeals of Jaipal Singh and Lakhan Giri abated on account of their deaths.

The post-mortem revealed multiple ante-mortem head injuries, including a depressed skull fracture and extrusion of brain matter. The injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object, and the cause of death was compressed head injury.

1. Whether the prosecution proved that deceased Sunil died a homicidal death and, if so, identified the person responsible for causing his fatal injuries?

2. Whether the evidence established that Dinesh Giri fired at and punctured the tractor’s tyre and, along with Jaipal Singh, pulled Sunil from the tractor?

3. Whether Yashpal Singh, Ashok Yadav and Rajesh Yadav participated in unlawful assembly and fired indiscriminately, thereby attracting Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC?

4. Whether Ram Kishan caused the death of Sunil by throwing a stone on his head, and whether his conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC could be modified to a conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter?

The Court applied Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC, concerning rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, murder, and vicarious liability for acts committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly.

It held that the evidence of related or interested witnesses cannot be rejected merely because of their relationship or partisanship, but must be scrutinised with greater care and caution; if credible and consistent, such evidence may independently sustain a conviction, relying on Mohd. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of M.P.

The Court also applied the principle that defective investigation is not by itself a ground for acquittal if the substantive evidence remains reliable, as stated in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.

The Court further relied on the principle that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal where the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable, as recognised in Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of U.P.

The Court accepted that Sunil’s death was homicidal because the post-mortem disclosed multiple head injuries on different sides of the body, skull fractures and brain extrusion, making the defence theory that he was accidentally crushed under an overturned tractor improbable.

However, the evidence against Dinesh Giri was found unreliable on material particulars. The alleged tyre seizure was not satisfactorily proved: the tractor was not found at the spot, the place from which the tyre pieces were seized was inconsistent, no bullet was recovered, and no gunshot mark was found on the tractor.

The allegation that Dinesh and Jaipal pulled Sunil from the tractor was a material improvement absent from the FIR and the police statements of the principal witnesses; Prem Bai’s first-time testimony was treated as unsafe to rely upon. Consequently, Dinesh’s membership of the unlawful assembly and his common object were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Similarly, the allegations that Yashpal, Ashok and Rajesh fired indiscriminately were not corroborated by any gunshot injury, cartridge recovery or gunshot mark on the tractor or trolley; their conviction based on Section 149 IPC therefore could not stand.

In contrast, the evidence of six prosecution witnesses consistently attributed the fatal stone assault to Ram Kishan, and the blood-stained stone recovered from the scene and the medical evidence corroborated that account. Since the individual act of Ram Kishan was proved but the participation of the wider unlawful assembly was not, the Court set aside the convictions under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and sustained liability under Section 302 IPC alone.

The conviction of Ram Kishan under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC was set aside, but he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000, with one month’s rigorous imprisonment in default.

His bail and surety bonds were cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court by 14 October 2026, failing which a perpetual arrest warrant could issue.

The appeals of Jaipal Singh and Lakhan Giri stood dismissed as abated due to their deaths.