Related eyewitness testimony remains admissible and can sustain conviction after careful scrutiny.

On 08.08.2017 at approximately 7:30 p.m., the deceased was allegedly assaulted near his residence by the seven appellants with sharp weapons, including daos, bhojalis and swords. His wife, sister-in-law and son, examined as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 respectively, claimed to have witnessed the assault in torchlight. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 allegedly saw the appellants leaving the place of occurrence with weapons. The deceased sustained extensive incised injuries to his neck, head and other parts of the body and died from grievous neck and head injuries caused by sharp, heavy and forceful weapons.

The FIR was submitted on 09.08.2017 at approximately 9:45 p.m., and Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 476/2017 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 326 and 302 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all seven appellants. The Sessions Court acquitted them of the charge under Sections 341/149 IPC but convicted them under Section 148 IPC and Sections 302/149 IPC, sentencing each to three years’ imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment under Sections 302/149 IPC, with a fine of Rs. 20,000.

The appellants challenged the conviction, principally disputing the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the delayed FIR, the absence of weapon recovery, alleged inconsistencies in the evidence, prior land-related enmity and the adequacy of their examination under Section 313 CrPC.

Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses—PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6—was reliable and sufficient, particularly when scrutinised with greater care and circumspection, to establish that all seven appellants participated in the assault?

Whether the delay of approximately 26 hours in lodging the FIR and the alleged delay in forwarding it to the Magistrate created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

Whether the alleged land dispute, discrepancies regarding the number of assailants, absence of recovery of weapons and the defence alibi rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable?

Whether the prosecution proved the appellants’ common object and their guilt under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC concerning rioting while armed with deadly weapons and constructive liability for murder committed in furtherance of the common object of an unlawful assembly.

It held, relying on Bishan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Hardial v. State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 288, and Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, AIR 2022 SC 5420, that evidence of a related witness is admissible but must be examined with greater care and circumspection; relationship alone does not make a witness unreliable.

Referring to Barban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 137, and Esakkimuthu v. State, 2025 INSC 880, the Court distinguished a merely “related” witness from an “interested” witness and required scrutiny for consistency, coherence and absence of embellishment.

The Court further applied the principle that trustworthy direct ocular evidence can sustain a conviction, including on the testimony of a single wholly reliable eyewitness, as recognised in Balku v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 852.

On delay in lodging the FIR, it relied on Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114, holding that delay may raise suspicion but is not fatal where satisfactorily explained and unaccompanied by embellishment.

The Court also applied the principle from Ruli Ram v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 691, that enmity is a double-edged circumstance capable both of supplying a motive for the crime and of supporting a plea of false implication.

The Court found that the medical evidence substantially corroborated the eyewitness account: the deceased had suffered multiple ante-mortem incised wounds to the neck and occipital region, including severance of major vessels and severe brain injury, consistent with an assault by sharp, heavy and forceful weapons.

Although PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 were related to the deceased, their evidence was not discarded merely on that ground. Their account that all seven appellants assaulted the deceased was considered alongside the independent or partially independent evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who saw the appellants fleeing with weapons, and PW-3, who corroborated the presence of several armed assailants.

The discrepancy that some witnesses saw only four appellants leaving was not treated as material, since the witnesses consistently implicated the appellants in the occurrence and the core prosecution case remained intact.

The delay in lodging the FIR was held reasonably explained by the nighttime occurrence in a village and the distance from the village to the police station at the district headquarters. The Court also noted that the defence had not put any specific suggestion of fabrication or embellishment to the prosecution witnesses.

The absence of weapon recovery did not outweigh the consistent ocular and medical evidence. The alleged land dispute was treated as legally inconclusive because enmity could either motivate the assault or support false implication, but the appellants failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the latter theory.

Finally, the alibi evidence of DW-1, concerning appellant No. 1’s presence at a mosque, was rejected as inconsistent with the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6.

On the cumulative evidence, the Court held that the common object and participation of the appellants in the fatal assault were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution successfully established that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and caused the deceased’s death in furtherance of their common object, thereby proving the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on 22.02.2024 were affirmed, and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.