Ocular testimony against specific accused sustains conviction under Section 304 Part II despite acquittal of co-accused.

The deceased, Nand Kishor @ Nandu, was allegedly accosted on 17.12.1983 by four accused (Dinesh, Mahesh, Suresh, and Madan Lal) who objected to him preventing them from entering the locality to tease girls

During the altercation, Dinesh allegedly stabbed Nandu in the left thigh with a knife

Nandu succumbed to excessive bleeding (hemorrhage and shock) due to a severed femoral artery

The Trial Court (11th Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra) convicted Dinesh under Section 304 (Part 2) IPC and the others under Section 304 (Part 2) r/w Section 34 IPC

Appellants Mahesh and Madan Lal died during the pendency of the appeal

The surviving appellants, Dinesh and Suresh, challenged the conviction on grounds of unreliable eye-witness testimony and lack of established common intention

1. Whether the ocular evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of appellant Dinesh for culpable homicide

2. Whether the prosecution established common intention under Section 34 IPC to hold appellant Suresh liable for the act committed by Dinesh

Section 304 (Part 2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intention

Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention, requiring proof of a prior meeting of minds or a pre-arranged plan

While "chance witnesses" require careful scrutiny, their testimony is admissible if consistent

The absence of a dock identification for unidentified accused creates a fatal gap in the prosecution’s case

The Court found the FIR was lodged promptly within 45 minutes, ruling out embellishment

Scrutinizing the witnesses, it dismissed P.W.1’s testimony because he failed to identify the accused in court

However, P.W.3 and P.W.4 (the first informant) were found reliable regarding Dinesh, as they were priorly acquainted with him and consistently testified that he delivered the fatal blow

The medical evidence (P.W.6) corroborated the oral testimony, confirming that a single stab wound to the thigh severed the femoral artery, leading to death

Regarding Suresh, the Court found a lack of evidence; no specific overt act was assigned to him, and witnesses (P.W.3) could not identify him by name or conduct a dock identification

While common intention was established between Dinesh and the deceased Madan Lal (who allegedly held the victim), it was not proved for Suresh

The Court acquitted Suresh, granting him the benefit of doubt as the prosecution failed to prove his specific involvement or common intention beyond reasonable doubt

Suresh was ordered to execute a personal bond under Section 481 of the BNSS (Sec 437-A CrPC), while Dinesh was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve his remaining sentence