Ocular evidence of direct firing corroborated by forensic reports sustains murder conviction despite acquittal of co-accused.

The incident arose from a land dispute over Survey No. 209 in Bhalgaam on 07.06.2012.

While the complainant (PW-2) and his son Nagjiji were farming, a group of accused arrived armed with deadly weapons, demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for cultivation.

During the altercation, accused Somaji allegedly assaulted Babuji (PW-3).

As Nagjiji attempted to flee, the appellant (Shaileshji Balaji) fired two rounds from a firearm, causing fatal injuries to Nagjiji’s chest and arm.

The Trial Court convicted Shaileshji under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act, and Dashrathji under the Arms Act, while acquitting 17 other co-accused due to lack of evidence regarding an unlawful assembly or conspiracy.

These cross-appeals were filed by the convict against his sentence and by the complainant against the acquittals.

Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellant as the sole assailant and established the requisite *mens rea* for murder under Section 302 IPC despite the acquittal of co-accused charged with unlawful assembly.

Whether the acquittal of the remaining 17 accused was justified given the allegations of prior conspiracy (Section 120B) and common object (Section 149).

Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies vitiated the conviction.

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC for murder and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for unlicensed possession and use of a firearm.

It relied on the principle that the maxim *falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus* is not a rule of law in India but a rule of caution, requiring courts to sift "the grain from the chaff" (*Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan; Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa*).

Regarding identification, it applied the doctrine from *Raja v. State* that dock identification is substantive evidence and the absence of a TIP is not fatal if the witness is reliable.

Furthermore, it distinguished *Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab* and *Achhey Lal v. State of UP*, noting that a conviction for a substantive act is valid even if the charge of constructive liability (Section 149) fails.

The Court found the eyewitness testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-17 to be consistent regarding the "direct and overt act" of Shaileshji firing the fatal shots.

Medical evidence from the post-mortem (Exh. 132) confirmed death by firearm, and FSL reports (Exh. 500) matched the retrieved bullet to the recovered pistol and detected gunpowder residue on the appellant.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the acquittal of the assembly (Section 149) necessitated his acquittal, reasoning that since a specific role was attributed to him from the FIR stage, he was on notice for a substantive Section 302 charge.

Conversely, the acquittal of the other 17 accused was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove a "meeting of minds" for conspiracy or a "common object," as testimonies regarding their specific overt acts were marred by improvements and lacked medical corroboration.

It held that the appellant Shaileshji Balaji was rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act based on credible ocular and forensic evidence.

The acquittal of the other respondents was maintained as the charges of unlawful assembly and conspiracy were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant remains in force.