Reliable related eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction despite non-examination of independent witnesses and investigative lapses.

The prosecution alleged that, owing to a dispute regarding the use of land beneath a Mahua tree as a khalihan, A1 Sher Mohammad, A2 Jalaluddin, A3 Sadiq, A4 Ajmat Ali and A5 Jamil attacked Amin Mirza on 12 April 1980 at approximately 7:30 a.m. while he was proceeding to irrigate his field. A2 allegedly fired a country-made pistol at the deceased, after which the remaining accused assaulted him with spears and knives. Amin Mirza died at the spot, and an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was registered at approximately 9:20 a.m. on the same day.

The prosecution examined three alleged eyewitnesses—PW-1 Kabir Ahmad, PW-2 Kashmiri Ahmad and PW-4 Shafiq Mirza—along with the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The post-mortem disclosed a fatal firearm injury and multiple incised and punctured wounds consistent, in broad terms, with the weapons alleged.

The Trial Court convicted all five accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, with concurrent sentences.

During the pendency of the appeal, A1 and A3 died, and the appeal abated against them; it consequently survived against A2, A4 and A5.

1. Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses was sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction despite the non-examination of other allegedly independent witnesses.

2. Whether the alleged discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, particularly concerning the firearm-firing distance, rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

3. Whether the defects in investigation, including the inaccurate site plan, non-production or non-recovery of certain articles, and deficiencies in the case diary, created a reasonable doubt regarding the occurrence or the accused’s participation.

4. Whether the prior enmity between the parties established a reasonable possibility of false implication.

5. Whether omissions or variations in the witnesses’ prior statements constituted legally proved contradictions under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 162 CrPC.

The Court applied Sections 302/149 IPC, concerning murder committed by members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, and Section 148 IPC, concerning rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.

It reiterated that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness and that testimony must be assessed for reliability rather than rejected solely because of relationship.

Relying on Sudhakar v. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435, and Shanker v. State of M.P., (2018) 15 SCC 725, the Court held that minor discrepancies which do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case are insufficient to discard otherwise credible evidence, and that the quality rather than quantity of evidence is material.

Under State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly @ Manikandan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424, conviction may rest on trustworthy eyewitness testimony even without independent corroboration.

The Court applied the distinction in Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, between medical evidence that merely creates a variation and evidence that makes the ocular account impossible.

It further treated defective investigation as non-fatal unless it demonstrably undermines the substantive evidence or creates reasonable doubt.

Prior enmity was treated as a double-edged circumstance requiring caution but not, by itself, proving false implication.

Finally, relying on Alauddin v. State of Assam, (2024) 12 SCC 224, the Court held that a contradiction under Section 145 must be specifically put to the witness and duly proved; a mere omission or variation is not automatically a proved contradiction.

The Court found PW-1 and PW-2’s presence natural because they were accompanying the deceased towards the agricultural fields, while PW-4 had a plausible explanation for reaching the scene immediately after hearing the alarm.

Although the witnesses differed regarding distances, positions and certain surrounding details, their accounts remained materially consistent regarding the accused’s presence, weapons, exhortation, firearm shot, the deceased’s fall and the subsequent assault.

The fatal firearm injury, recovery of metallic shots and wadding, and the doctor’s opinion that the injury was independently sufficient to cause death substantially corroborated the ocular version; the absence of blackening or tattooing affected only the precise firing distance and did not make the alleged assault impossible.

The defective site plan and other investigative lapses were assigned limited weight because they did not disprove the occurrence or the eyewitnesses’ presence, and could not override reliable substantive evidence.

The prior land dispute justified careful scrutiny but did not establish fabrication, particularly when the prosecution evidence was otherwise consistent and medically supported.

The alleged omissions also failed to qualify as duly proved, material contradictions under Section 145.

The Trial Court’s convictions under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC were affirmed; the appeal was dismissed.

Since A1 and A3 had died, the appeal had already abated against them, and the surviving appellants—A2 Jalaluddin, A4 Ajmat Ali and A5 Jamil—were directed to surrender within 15 days, failing which they were to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.

Each surviving appellant was additionally directed to pay a fine of ₹20,000, totalling ₹60,000, to be distributed equally as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased; default consequences were left to be imposed in accordance with law.