Ocular evidence of credible eyewitnesses outweighs negative ballistic reports and procedural irregularities in murder convictions.

The deceased, Bhura Singh, purchased a dilapidated house from Awadhram via a registered sale deed

The appellants allegedly sought to grab this property for a widowed relative, Rupa Devi, who worked for them

On 11.10.2008, when the deceased, his son PW-1, and brother PW-2 went to negotiate a compromise with one Ram Swaroop, the four appellants arrived armed with firearms (SBBL, DBBL, and a rifle)

Following an exhortation, the appellants climbed a roof and fired indiscriminately, hitting Bhura Singh as he attempted to flee

He succumbed to injuries at Vijaipur Hospital

The Trial Court convicted all four appellants under Section 302 IPC

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of an "anti-timed" FIR, discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, and the failure of the Ballistic Report to match recovered weapons with cartridges found at the scene

1. Whether the ocular testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are reliable despite their status as related/interested witnesses?

2. Whether there is a fatal inconsistency between the prosecution's narrative and the medical evidence regarding the entry site of the firearm wounds?

3. Whether the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate (15.10.2008) renders it "anti-timed" or fabricated?

4. Whether the negative Ballistic Report (FSL) regarding the recovered weapons invalidates the prosecution case?

5. Whether the conviction under Section 302 is sustainable without the specific invocation of Section 34 IPC in the operative order?

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC for murder and Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention

It relied on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra [para. 26] and Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra [para. 27] for principles on appreciating ocular evidence of related witnesses.

Regarding the FIR delay, it applied Rama Devi v. State of Bihar, holding that delay is not fatal unless prejudice is shown

On the ballistic discrepancies, it followed Rakesh v. State of U.P., establishing that recovery of the actual weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if ocular evidence is unimpeachable

Finally, it applied Suresh v. State of U.P. to reiterate that Section 34 is a rule of evidence regarding vicarious liability and not a substantive offence

The Court found PW-1 and PW-2 to be credible eyewitnesses whose presence was natural and whose descriptions matched the site plan exactly

It reconciled the medical evidence (front-side wounds) with the fact that the deceased likely turned his head/body back toward the assailants while fleeing

The "anti-timed" FIR argument was rejected because the inquest and post-mortem papers, prepared immediately, contained the crime details, serving as an internal check

Regarding the Ballistic Report, the Court reasoned that the appellants likely used firearms other than their licensed ones, or the police failed to recover the actual murder weapons; regardless, the presence of fired pellets in the body corroborated the ocular account of firing

The Court determined that the appellants' arrival 17.07.2024 en masse, armed with weapons, and their joint exhortation clearly proved a "prior concert" and "common intention" under Section 34

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, but corrected a procedural irregularity by formally altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to reflect the common intention established by the evidence. The appellants' bail bonds were cancelled, and they were ordered into custody.