P&H HC Upholds Life Sentence For Man Who Killed Woman After She Asked Him To Repay ₹20,000

Kavita was found fatally injured at her home on 19 October 2015. Her brother, Krishan Kumar, lodged the FIR under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution relied principally on neighbour Vidya Devi’s eyewitness account, evidence that Mukesh Kumar apprehended the appellant while he was leaving, the recovery of a knife, forensic evidence, and messages said to establish a money dispute as motive.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed, alleging, among other things, that the eyewitness was introduced later and that the prosecution evidence was unreliable.

Section 302 IPC criminalises murder. In assessing witness testimony, the court must consider the evidence as a whole and determine whether discrepancies affect its core credibility; minor inconsistencies, exaggerations, or the absence of independent witnesses do not, by themselves, justify rejection of otherwise credible testimony. The Court relied on Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC (Criminal) 1461, for these principles.

It also relied on Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1675 of 2015, decided 22 January 2025, for the principles that credible eyewitness testimony may establish guilt and that medical evidence ordinarily serves to corroborate ocular evidence, unless a gross contradiction makes the ocular account improbable.

The Court found Vidya Devi’s account credible: she was the deceased’s neighbour, said she responded to the deceased’s cries, witnessed the assault, and sustained injuries when she intervened; her injuries were supported by medical evidence.

The Court also considered Mukesh Kumar’s evidence that he apprehended the appellant, the blood-stained clothing and forensic findings, the recovery of the knife, the medical evidence concerning the fatal injuries, and messages indicating a money dispute.

It concluded that the asserted inconsistencies did not materially undermine the prosecution case and that the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed the appellant to surrender forthwith and the State to take him into custody in accordance with law.