Related witnesses’ testimony remains reliable when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.

The appellant, Reshma, was convicted by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, for offences under Sections 302, 352 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment, three months’ rigorous imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with fines.

The prosecution alleged that, following a quarrel between Reshma and the deceased, Sangeeta Dawar, the appellant assaulted Sangeeta with a darata on 17 June 2021.

Lucky, the deceased’s son, stated that he witnessed the assault, was threatened by the appellant, and later found his mother lying injured on the floor.

The post-mortem revealed multiple incised wounds and fractures to the deceased’s skull, face and jaw, with death resulting from haemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding.

The prosecution also relied on the evidence of Prakash and Kalu, who allegedly saw the appellant leaving the area on a scooter with bloodstained clothes, as well as forensic evidence connecting bloodstained articles and the appellant to the incident.

After the appellant’s conviction, she preferred the present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., contending that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, that there were material contradictions, and that no independent eyewitness had been examined.

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of Sangeeta Dawar and that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable.

Whether the testimony of the deceased’s son and other related witnesses could be relied upon despite their relationship with the deceased and the absence of independent witnesses.

Whether the conviction and sentences under Sections 352 and 506 Part-II IPC, in addition to Section 302 IPC, warranted interference in appeal.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning punishment for murder, Sections 352 and 506 Part-II IPC concerning assault or criminal force and criminal intimidation involving threats of death or grievous hurt, and Section 374 Cr.P.C. governing appeals against conviction.

It relied on the principle that intention to cause death may be inferred from the nature, number and location of injuries and the weapon used, and need not necessarily arise from prior premeditation.

The Court further applied the rule that the testimony of a related witness cannot be rejected solely on the ground of relationship; the relevant distinction is between a merely related witness and an “interested” witness who has a motive to secure the accused’s conviction.

In this regard, it relied on Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2019 SC 1058.

The Court also treated an accused’s failure to explain incriminating forensic circumstances as a relevant circumstance in assessing the prosecution case.

The Court found the medical evidence consistent with a deliberate and severe assault: the deceased had numerous incised injuries and fractures to vital parts of the head, face and jaw, and died from haemorrhagic shock.

Lucky’s testimony was accepted as that of an eyewitness who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a darata and threatening him when he attempted to intervene.

His account was corroborated by Prakash and Kalu, who saw the appellant shortly thereafter in a frightened condition and wearing bloodstained clothes, and by the recovery and forensic evidence, including DNA/blood findings on the seized articles and clothing.

The Court rejected the argument that the witnesses’ relationship with the deceased rendered their evidence unreliable, holding that their testimony remained cogent and was not materially shaken in cross-examination.

On the cumulative evidence, the Court inferred the requisite intention or knowledge for murder and found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.

The conviction under Sections 302, 352 and 506 Part-II IPC and the sentences imposed by the trial court were affirmed.

Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 11061 of 2022 was dismissed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned; any pending interlocutory application was closed.