MP HC Upholds Devendra’s Life Term For Fatal Group Attack Near Pan Shop Despite Minor Witness Discrepancies And One-Day FIR Dispatch Delay

On 18 May 2000, Tuntun alias Dinesh Tiwari was assaulted near a pan shop at Rannod bus stand by a group of persons, including Devendra. He died from multiple blunt-force injuries, including fractures to the occipital and temporal bones.

The trial court convicted Devendra under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, sentencing him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 and life imprisonment, with fine, under Section 302/149.

In the appeal under Section 374 CrPC, Devendra adopted arguments advanced in related appeals, principally challenging the eyewitness evidence, the non-examination of another alleged witness, the effect of enmity, and delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate.

Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC governed the appellant’s convictions, while Section 374 CrPC provided the appellate route.

The Court applied the settled principle that only material contradictions or omissions that undermine the core of the prosecution case warrant rejection of eyewitness evidence; minor discrepancies do not.

It also applied the rule that related or interested witnesses’ evidence must be scrutinised with care but is not to be discarded solely because of their relationship or enmity, and that the quality, not the number, of witnesses, is decisive.

Under Section 157 CrPC, delay in forwarding an FIR to the Magistrate is not, by itself, fatal absent demonstrated prejudice to the accused.

The post-mortem evidence established that the deceased sustained fatal antemortem injuries from blunt objects, supporting the finding of homicidal death.

Four eyewitnesses supported the prosecution in this trial; the Court found that the appellant had not effectively challenged the evidence of two of them, while the discrepancies identified in the other witnesses’ accounts were minor and did not affect the core case.

The prompt FIR, lodged within approximately fifteen minutes, supported the witnesses’ presence and reduced the possibility of deliberation or fabrication.

The alleged presence of an unexamined witness and the witnesses’ relationship to the deceased did not, without more, undermine otherwise credible testimony; nor did the one-day delay in forwarding the FIR establish prejudice.

It affirmed the convictions and sentences, dismissed the appeal, cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds, and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.