Testimony of injured related witnesses is reliable if consistent and corroborated despite existing land disputes.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the deaths of the three deceased persons were homicidal in nature?

The court held

The Court specifically noted that the testimony of "related" witnesses who are also "injured" witnesses cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the victims when their statements are coherent and corroborated by medical evidence.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences, including life imprisonment for murder and 10 years for attempted murder.

01Facts

The deceased (Jagriti, Tina, Manish) and the injured (Oskumar, Oman, Geetanjali, Anarbai) were related to the appellants, Parasram and Brijsen Gayakwad.

pp. 2-3, para 4

On September 11, 2020, between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., the appellants entered Oskumar’s house, threw chili powder in the eyes of the occupants, and launched an indiscriminate attack with daggers due to a land dispute.

pp. 2-3, para 4

Jagriti, Tina, and Manish died on the spot with their throats slit; four others sustained life-threatening injuries.

¶ 4-5

The Trial Court (1st ASJ, Mahasamund) convicted the appellants under Sections 459, 302/34, and 307/34 of the IPC via judgment dated June 18, 2025.

p. 2, para 3

The appellants challenged this conviction, arguing it was a spur-of-the-moment act without premeditated intent, suggesting the offense be mitigated to Section 304 IPC.

p. 5, para 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the deaths of the three deceased persons were homicidal in nature?

p. 12, para 14

ii.2. Whether the appellants acted with common intention and premeditation to commit murder under Section 302/34 IPC, or if the act constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

p. 13, para 24

iii.3. Whether the injuries caused to the survivors were sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307/34 IPC?

p. 13, para 24

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 300 "Thirdly" of the IPC, which defines murder as causing bodily injury intended by the offender and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

pp. 13-14

It relied on the seminal precedent Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958), which established a four-step objective test to determine murderous intent based on the nature and sufficiency of the injury.

pp. 13-14, para 26

It further cited Anda v. State of Rajasthan (1966), emphasizing that the "high probability of death" resulting from the choice of weapon and the targeted body part serves as a determinant factor for murder.

p. 14, para 26

The Court also applied Section 459 of the IPC regarding grievous hurt caused during house-trespass and Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention.

p. 15, 23

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court found the deaths were undeniably homicidal, supported by medical evidence from PW-16 and PW-17 showing slit throats and severed carotid arteries.

p. 12, para 23

Regarding intent, the Court rejected the "spur-of-the-moment" defense, noting that the appellants came armed with daggers, chili powder, and a crowbar (sabbal) to break locked doors; this demonstrated clear premeditation and a common intention to kill.

pp. 16, 22-23

The testimony of injured eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-21, PW-22), who were naturally present at the scene during the early morning attack, was deemed highly reliable and consistent with the physical evidence.

pp. 18-21

The recovery of blood-stained daggers based on the appellants' memorandum statements (Ex.P-14, P-15) and the forensic confirmation of human blood further linked them to the crime.

pp. 17-18, para 31-32

The Court observed that attacking vital organs (necks) of sleeping children and women with lethal weapons met the "sufficiency" criteria under Section 300 IPC.

pp. 13-15