Video evidence and dying declarations corroborated by eyewitness testimony sustain convictions for murder and attempted murder.

The Appellants (uncles of the victim) were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, for the murder of Amol Atalkar and the attempted murder of Vaibhav Kawadkar following a property dispute on January 21, 2018.

According to the complainant (PW-2), the Appellants assaulted the victims with a stick and an axe at Mohagaon Bhadade.

While PW-2 identified the attackers, the injured victim Vaibhav (PW-5) turned hostile during the trial, claiming he could not identify the assailants.

However, the prosecution produced video recordings captured by police at the scene where both Vaibhav and the deceased, Amol, specifically named the Appellants as their attackers.

The Appellants pleaded alibi, which the Trial Court rejected.

Whether the death of Amol Ramesh Atalkar was homicidal in nature?

Whether the Appellants, in furtherance of common intention, committed the murder of Amol Atalkar and the attempted murder of Vaibhav Kawadkar?

Whether the Hostile Testimony of an injured witness (PW-5) can be discarded entirely when contradicted by electronic evidence and dying declarations?

Whether the High Court should initiate perjury proceedings against a witness who intentionally gives false evidence?

The Court applied Sections 302 (Murder), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 323 (Voluntary causing hurt), and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records (video clips).

Regarding the hostilisation of witnesses, the court applied the principle that the testimony of a hostile witness can be accepted to the extent it supports the prosecution if corroborated.

Finally, the court invoked Section 193 of the IPC read with Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC regarding the prosecution for perjury, citing Perumal v. Janaki and Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M.P.

The Court affirmed the homicidal death based on the post-mortem report showing fatal head injuries caused by hard and sharp objects.

Despite PW-5 (Vaibhav) turning hostile, the Court relied on the "star witness" PW-2, whose testimony was consistent and credible.

Crucially, the Court validated the electronic evidence (video clips) under Section 65-B, which functioned as a dying declaration for Amol and a prior consistent statement for Vaibhav, both identifying the Appellants immediately after the incident.

The Court rejected the argument that Appellant No. 2 was not responsible for the death, noting that Section 34 IPC makes all participants liable for the collective criminal act performed with common intention.

The Court found that PW-5’s denial of the attackers' identities was a "deliberate and intentional" falsehood aimed at shielding his relatives.

The Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through medical evidence, electronic recordings, and the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4.

Additionally, the Court directed the Assistant Registrar to file a formal complaint for perjury under Section 340 CrPC against PW-5 (Vaibhav Kawadkar) for giving false evidence during a judicial proceeding.