Minor discrepancies in timing do not discredit consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence.

The appellant was prosecuted for allegedly entering the house of the deceased, Bhakta Bahadur Chetry, and assaulting him with a brick and a tube-well iron lever, resulting in his death.

The deceased’s wife, PW-1, and his minor daughter, PW-12, claimed to have witnessed the assault.

PW-1 also alleged that the appellant assaulted her and removed Rs.30,000/- from the house, although the appellant was ultimately acquitted of the charge under Section 379 IPC.

The FIR was registered under Sections 302/379/448 IPC, and the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 448 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and three months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 448 IPC.

The medical evidence disclosed a depressed frontal-bone fracture and intracerebral haemorrhage caused by blunt impact to the head.

The seized articles included a bloodstained broken brick, a bloodstained tube-well lever, and a bloodstained cement-bag piece.

Whether the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-12 were sufficiently reliable and corroborated to sustain the appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, despite discrepancies regarding the precise time and manner of assault.

Whether the discrepancy between the timings stated in the FIR, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and the trial testimony was material enough to create reasonable doubt.

Whether the evidence established that the appellant committed house-trespass punishable under Section 448 IPC.

Whether the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence required appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 448 IPC concerning murder and house-trespass, while noting that the appellant had been acquitted under Section 379 IPC.

It applied the principle that minor discrepancies concerning the timing of an occurrence do not undermine otherwise reliable eyewitness testimony, relying on Pundappa Yankappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, where a discrepancy of approximately one and a half hours was held insufficient to discredit the prosecution case.

Under Raj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that an accused may be expected to explain incriminating circumstances in a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and a blanket denial may permit an adverse inference where reliable eyewitness evidence exists.

The Court further relied on the principle that testimony of a close relative is not inadmissible merely because of the relationship and may sustain a conviction if it is natural, consistent, and trustworthy; direct ocular evidence prevails when found cogent and reliable, as recognised in Esakkimuthu v. State and Balku Oram v. State of Odisha.

The medical and seizure evidence could be used to corroborate the eyewitness account.

The Court found PW-1 and PW-12 to be natural eyewitnesses whose accounts consistently identified the appellant as the assailant and described the use of a brick and a tube-well lever.

Their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements substantially corroborated their trial testimony, including the identity of the assailant and the weapons used.

The variation in timing—from approximately 6:30 p.m. to 7–8 p.m.—was treated as a minor discrepancy falling within an approximately half-hour range and not affecting the core prosecution case.

The absence of testimony from neighbours and the non-examination of PW-4 did not displace the otherwise credible direct evidence.

The medical findings of a fatal blunt-force head injury corresponded with the eyewitness account, while the bloodstained brick and tube-well lever corroborated the weapons described by the witnesses.

The appellant’s blanket denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., without explaining his alleged presence or the incriminating evidence, further supported the prosecution case in the circumstances.

The Court therefore found no material contradiction or inconsistency going to the root of the matter.

The discrepancies regarding the exact time of occurrence were minor and did not create reasonable doubt.

The conviction under Sections 302 and 448 IPC and the sentences imposed by the Trial Court were affirmed.

The appeal was dismissed, the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned, and the Legal Aid Counsel’s fee was ordered to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee.