Ocular evidence clearly establishing a fatal firearm injury overrides minor medical contradictions and delayed First Information Reports.

The prosecution case originated from a fardbeyan by Mukund Gope (PW-8) alleging that on January 5, 1991, eleven named accused persons attacked his house due to a title suit animosity.

The appellant, Kishor Gope, allegedly fired a gun hitting Ramavtar Gope, who died en route to the hospital.

Other accused fired at Sunita Kumari (PW-3) and Mahajani Devi (PW-4).

While twelve were chargesheeted, five died during trial.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act but acquitted the other six co-accused, citing a lack of corroboration regarding their specific roles and the failure to prove the common object under Section 149 IPC.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses is reliable despite contradictions with medical evidence and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

2. Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons on the same set of evidence entitles the appellant to an acquittal.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the use of arms.

The court applied the principle that the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India, requiring the court to separate the "chaff from the grain".

Reliance on Tara Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the effect of delay in lodging an FIR.

Reliance on Gopal Singh v. State of Bihar regarding the application of broad probabilities in criminal adjudication.

The High Court found that the informant (PW-8) and injured witness (PW-3) were credible eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was established by the defense’s own counter-case (Chandi P.S. Case No. 3/1991), which placed the appellant and witnesses at the same location and time.

The court reasoned that the non-examination of the I.O. did not prejudice the defense because the place and time of occurrence were undisputed.

Regarding the medical-ocular conflict, the court noted that while the deceased had additional hard-and-blunt injuries not specifically explained, the primary firearm injury to the thigh and scrotum—attributed to the appellant—was confirmed by the post-mortem report (Ex. 1) as the cause of death.

The court separated the specific, consistent allegations against the appellant from the vague or unproven allegations against the acquitted co-accused, justifying the "split" verdict.

The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and five years under Section 27 of the Arms Act were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.