Land-Dispute Murder: Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Terms For Two Men, Sets Aside Two Women’s Convictions For Lack Of Common-Intention Evidence

The appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC for the death of Gopi Mohali and injuries to two intervening witnesses. The prosecution alleged that the assault arose from a land dispute.

The trial court imposed life imprisonment and a fine for the murder conviction, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the hurt conviction, with sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the Court considered the eyewitness and injured-witness testimony, medical evidence, and the respective roles attributed to the four appellants.

The Court applied Sections 302, 323 and 34 IPC. Section 302 concerns murder; Section 323 concerns voluntarily causing hurt; and Section 34 attributes joint liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court relied on Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421, for the principle that an injured witness’s testimony receives special weight because the witness’s presence at the scene is ordinarily established by the injury, and should not be rejected without compelling grounds.

It also relied on State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414, for the rule that injured-witness evidence has greater evidentiary value and minor discrepancies do not undermine otherwise credible testimony.

The Court found that the injuries recorded by the doctor corroborated the accounts of P.W.-3 and P.W.-5, who had intervened and were injured, supporting their presence at the scene.

The post-mortem evidence established that the deceased died from head injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The evidence implicated appellants 1 and 2 in the assault with sharp weapons, and the Court upheld their convictions for murder and for causing simple injuries to the two witnesses.

By contrast, the evidence against appellants 3 and 4 was that they carried sticks; the deceased’s fatal injuries were incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons, and the Court found no evidence establishing that the women participated in furtherance of a common intention to commit murder.

The appeal was allowed as to appellants 3 and 4, whose convictions were set aside; they were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities and their sureties were discharged.