Ocular testimony of related witnesses is credible if consistent and corroborated by medical evidence despite minor contradictions.

The informant, Mahipal Singh, alleged that on April 10, 1998, his son Jagpal was murdered near a canal culvert by four accused (Mukesh, Bablu, Pravesh, and Leela) due to a long-standing land dispute.

The prosecution claimed the accused intercepted Jagpal, who was on a bicycle, and assaulted him with sticks and knives.

An FIR was lodged at 10:30 am.

Following investigation and recovery of weapons, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and the Arms Act.

During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Lila, Mukesh, and Bablu died, leaving the appeal to survive only for appellant Pravesh.

1. Whether the appellant-convict Pravesh had any motive to commit the murder.

2. Whether there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

3. Whether the non-examination of eye-witness Rohtash was fatal to the prosecution.

4. Whether the use of knives could cause the multiple fractures found on the deceased's head.

5. Whether the prosecution proved its case against Pravesh beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention to murder, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

It relied on Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which stipulates that the quality, not quantity, of witnesses matters.

The Court followed the principle that in cases of direct ocular evidence, proof of motive is not indispensable (Chandan v. State).

Regarding inquest reports, it applied the rule that Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and need not contain names of witnesses (Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P.).

The principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" was rejected as having no general acceptability in India.

The Court found the motive established through documented land litigation involving Pravesh’s father.

The FIR was deemed prompt as it was lodged within two hours of the incident occurring 12km away.

Although the appellant challenged his presence, the Court held that the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were trustworthy despite being relatives, as they provided consistent accounts of the assault.

The Court clarified that the witnesses' failure to sign the inquest report did not discredit them, as an inquest is not substantive evidence of the killers' identities.

Medical evidence from PW-4 confirmed that the incised wounds were caused by sharp weapons (knives) with sufficient force to fracture underlying bone, corroborating the ocular testimony.

The recovery of a blood-stained knife on Pravesh's pointing out, which remained uncontroverted in cross-examination, further linked him to the crime.

The Court affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment of appellant Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC and his sentence under the Arms Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence.