### Reversal of acquittal based on corroborated testimony of injured father and eyewitnesses in murder trial.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in disregarding the testimony of an injured witness (PW1) and several eyewitnesses (PW2-PW7) due to minor inconsistencies in the medical records.

The court held

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2018.

It also directed

A1 to A3 are found guilty of offences under Sections 341, 323, and 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.

The Court sentenced the respondents to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 each for murder, one month simple imprisonment for wrongful restraint, and one year simple imprisonment for causing hurt, to run concurrently.

However, the Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment to allow the accused to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

01Facts

The Appellant (PW1/Defacto Complainant) challenged the acquittal of Respondents 2-4 (A1-A3) by the XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

p. 1

On 29.08.2016, following a dispute regarding temple Annadhanam, the accused waylaid PW1 and his son (the deceased Gopinath).

p. 2

They repeatedly attacked them with wooden logs (MO1) and stones (MO2).

p. 2

Specifically, A1 threw a large stone at the deceased's head with intent to kill.

p. 2

The deceased succumbed to head injuries on 31.08.2016 at Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital.

p. 4, 12

The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing contradictions in the number of assailants mentioned in the Accident Register and the testimony of hostile secondary witnesses.

p. 12, 16, 19

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in disregarding the testimony of an injured witness (PW1) and several eyewitnesses (PW2-PW7) due to minor inconsistencies in the medical records.

p. 15, 20

ii.2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt for charges under Sections 341, 323, and 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.

p. 2, 32

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 341 (Wrongful restraint) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the IPC.

p. 2, 35

It relied on the evidentiary principle from *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh*, which establishes that the testimony of an "injured witness" (stamped witness) is accorded special status and should be relied upon unless major contradictions exist.

p. 25

It further applied the appellate standard from *State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal*, affirming that the High Court is obliged to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal to ensure justice.

p. 22

Regarding medical records, it noted that a Medical Officer's primary duty is to record the nature of injuries rather than determine the identity of assailants.

p. 21

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341 Section 294 Section 323 Section 324 Section 506 Section 302 Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Trial Court failed to give due weightage to the "stamped" testimony of PW1, whose presence at the scene was indisputable due to his own injuries.

p. 25, 32

The Court observed that PW17 and PW19 (Doctors) and Exs.P6, P7, and P11 (Medical Reports) corroborated the ocular evidence regarding the weapons used and the nature of the assault.

p. 31, 34

The Court rejected the defense's argument regarding the mention of "four persons" in the medical register, noting that the medical officer is not a substitute for investigative identifying procedures.

p. 21, 34

The consistency between the eyewitness accounts (PW2-PW7) regarding the specific overt acts—A1 throwing the stone and A2/A3 using wooden logs—established a common intention to cause death.

p. 32, 33

The recovery of MO1 and MO2 pursuant to voluntary confessions further linked the accused to the crime.

p. 33