Reliability of Natural Related Witnesses and Corroborative Ocular-Medical Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on July 11, 1984, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the appellants, Gayasi (armed with a farsa) and Ram Charan (armed with a bhala), attacked the deceased, Ramola, while he was resting under a Banyan tree after farm work.

The incident was witnessed by the informant, Bari Bahu (PW-1, mother of the deceased), and Parsadi (PW-3, uncle).

Enmity regarding land and trees was cited as the motive.

Medical evidence confirmed death by shock and hemorrhage due to incised and punctured wounds.

The Trial Court convicted both under Section 302/34 IPC on April 10, 1987.

During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Ram Charan died, leading to the abatement of his appeal.

Gayasi challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the witnesses were highly "interested" relatives and their testimonies lacked independent corroboration.

1. Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of being "related" or "interested" witnesses.

2. Whether the ocular evidence provided by PW-1 and PW-3 is sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Section 302 (Punishment for murder) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Principle from State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Masalti v. State of U.P., which establishes that "related" is not equivalent to "interested" and that the evidence of a natural witness cannot be mechanically rejected because of kinship.

Principle from Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that the instinct of self-preservation justifies why unarmed relatives might not intervene against armed assailants.

The Court found the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 to be simple, natural, and consistent, despite their illiteracy.

The Court reasoned that family members are the most natural witnesses to such an incident and are unlikely to shield the real culprit to falsely implicate a relative.

The Court noted that the ocular evidence was perfectly aligned with the medical findings of PW-2, who identified injuries caused by both a sharp-edged weapon (farsa) and a pointed weapon (bhala).

While the Court acknowledged technical lapses in the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it held that the recovery of bloodstained weapons at the appellants' instance served as substantial corroboration of the eye-witness accounts within the overall factual matrix.

The motive of existing land disputes further supported the prosecution's case.

The Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of Gayasi under Section 302/34 IPC and ordered him to surrender within fifteen days before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, failing which non-bailable warrants shall be issued.