Reliable related eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction despite non-recovery of the weapon of offence.

On 12 March 2013 at approximately 2:45 p.m., Avdhesh Sharma, accompanied by his cousin Shailendra Sharma (PW7) and Vipin Sharma (PW9), was returning to village Birkhadi after travelling by tractor. According to the eyewitnesses, Anil @ Bhura fired a pistol at Avdhesh from close range, causing a fatal chest injury, while Kallu @ Madhusudan, Girish Sharma and Ram Baran Sharma allegedly fired indiscriminately at the accompanying witnesses.

Avdhesh died at the spot. The post-mortem revealed an entry and exit gunshot wound and a lacerated lung, with death caused by hypovolemic shock due to the gunshot injury.

The FIR was registered within approximately thirty minutes of the occurrence.

The trial court convicted Anil under Section 302 IPC and Kallu, Girish and Ram Baran under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.

The accused were acquitted of charges under Section 307/34 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, and no appeal was filed against those acquittals.

1. Whether the prosecution proved that Avdhesh Sharma died a homicidal death caused by a gunshot fired by Anil @ Bhura.

2. Whether the testimony of the related eyewitnesses, Shailendra Sharma and Vipin Sharma, was reliable despite their relationship with the deceased and the admitted enmity between the parties.

3. Whether Kallu @ Madhusudan, Girish Sharma and Ram Baran Sharma shared a common intention with Anil so as to attract Section 34 IPC.

4. Whether the pleas of alibi raised by Kallu @ Madhusudan and Girish Sharma created a reasonable doubt regarding their presence at the scene.

5. Whether the non-recovery or non-linkage of the weapons of offence materially weakened the prosecution case.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC: Section 302 punishes murder, while Section 34 imposes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

It held that the evidence of a related or interested witness is not legally inadmissible and may support a conviction if, after careful scrutiny, it is cogent, credible and bears a ring of truth; relationship alone is not a ground for rejection, though evidence must be examined with greater caution, as explained in Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P., Raju v. State of T.N., State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, Waman v. State of Maharashtra and Sudhakar v. State.

The Court relied on the principle that normal discrepancies do not affect credibility, whereas material contradictions may do so.

Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, alibi is a rule of relevancy, and the accused must establish it with strict and cogent proof sufficient to exclude the possibility of presence at the crime scene, as stated in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Vijay Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and S.K. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court further applied the rule that non-recovery of the weapon of offence does not by itself discredit reliable ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, following Nankaunoo v. State of U.P.

The Court found the medical evidence consistent with the eyewitness account: the deceased had sustained a close-range gunshot injury to the chest, resulting in a lacerated lung and death from hypovolemic shock.

The testimonies of PW7 and PW9 were treated as natural and substantially consistent; their presence was corroborated by the prompt telephone information, the FIR lodged within thirty minutes, the recovery of fired cartridges from the spot, and the medical evidence.

Their relationship with the deceased and the parties’ land-related enmity required careful scrutiny but did not render their evidence unreliable.

The recovery of .32 and .315 bore fired cartridges supported the claim that several firearms had been used and that indiscriminate firing had occurred.

Although the prosecution could not satisfactorily connect the seized weapons with the crime, that deficiency did not overcome the credible ocular evidence.

The Court inferred common intention from the accused allegedly lying in wait together, being armed, surrounding the complainant party and firing during the incident.

The alibi of Kallu was rejected because the clinic attendance register was marked only after working hours and did not establish his continuous presence at the clinic; Girish’s defence witnesses were either hearsay or lacked reliable documentary support.

Accordingly, the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The sentences of life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 each were upheld, the Court observing that life imprisonment was the minimum sentence applicable.

Anil, who was in custody, was directed to undergo the remaining sentence; the bail bonds of Kallu, Girish and Ram Baran were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender before the trial court on or before 27 August 2026.