Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not warrant reversal when the prosecution’s core account remains consistent.

The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 460 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with a sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment, for his alleged participation in a nighttime housebreaking during which the deceased, Phoolmati Devi, sustained fatal injuries

The prosecution case rested principally on the testimony of the deceased’s daughter, who said she identified the intruders and that the appellant was apprehended while fleeing; two other witnesses testified that they saw the accused leaving the house and helped apprehend him

The postmortem evidence recorded blunt-force injuries and internal haemorrhage as the cause of death

The appellant denied involvement and alleged false implication arising from prior enmity; the defence also led evidence concerning alibi and disputes between the parties

The appeals of the other two appellants had abated

1. Whether the prosecution evidence reliably established the appellant’s presence, participation in the nighttime housebreaking, and apprehension while fleeing, notwithstanding the alleged inconsistencies and non-examination of an eyewitness

2. Whether the medical evidence, alleged weapon discrepancies, prior enmity, and defence evidence created reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt

3. Whether the conviction and sentence warranted appellate interference

The conviction was under Section 460 read with Section 34 IPC. Section 460 addresses joint participation in lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night where one of the participants causes death or grievous hurt; Section 34 attributes liability for a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The State invoked the principles that minor discrepancies do not necessarily undermine credible testimony, that evidence must be assessed as a whole, and that material discrepancies must be distinguished from ordinary variations. It cited Mustak v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 7 SCC 237; Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188; Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537; Dharnidhar v. State of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759; and Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643

These authorities are recorded as submissions for the State; the judgment does not set out a separate analysis of their application.

The State argued that the daughter’s account was corroborated by the witnesses who said they saw the accused fleeing and helped apprehend the appellant, and by the medical evidence establishing fatal abdominal trauma

The appellant disputed the witnesses’ credibility, the identification and sequence of events, and the consistency between the alleged weapon and the medical findings

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, but its reasons do not separately resolve these contested evidentiary points or explain how the cited principles apply to them

It directed that, if the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds be cancelled, his sureties discharged, and he be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence

The appeals of the other two appellants had already abated