Witness Testimony of Close Relatives Requires Careful Scrutiny but Can Sustain Conviction Without Independent Corroboration

The deceased, Umesh Pandey, a school guard, was assaulted and shot dead on 24.06.2015 near Aganur High School

The motive was retaliatory, as the deceased had reported one Pankaj Kumar for harassing girl students

The prosecution relied on the eye-witness accounts of the deceased's sons (PW-5 and PW-6), who were present to collect school certificates

Based on their testimony and an alleged oral dying declaration, the Trial Court convicted four appellants—Rajesh Yadav, Fiddu Yadav, Rambrat Yadav, and Jalendra Yadav—under Sections 302/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence

1. Whether the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 (sons of the deceased) are reliable eye-witness accounts or suffer from the vice of being "interested witnesses"

2. Whether the alleged oral dying declaration made by the deceased while being transported to the hospital is legally sustainable

3. Whether appellants Rambrat Yadav and Jalendra Yadav shared a common object to commit murder under Section 149 IPC, or were lediglich participants in a lower-grade offense

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly/Common Object), and Sections 147/323 of the IPC

It relied on *Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Sikandar Singh v. State of Bihar* regarding the ingredients of "unlawful assembly" and "common object"

It further applied principles from *Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh* and *Arun Bhanudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra*, which dictate that oral dying declarations must be treated with extreme caution and require the maker to be in a fit mental/physical state

Regarding "interested witnesses," the court applied the "rule of prudence" from *Gajula Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P.*, holding that proximity of relationship does not discard testimony but mandates closer scrutiny

The Court scrutinized the ocular evidence in light of the medical report.

While PW-5 and PW-6 were related to the deceased, their presence at the school was deemed natural, and their testimony regarding the shooting by Fiddu and Rajesh was consistent with the recovery of a .315 caliber bullet

However, the court rejected the "oral dying declaration," noting that the deceased had a lacerated brain and perforated lungs; thus, there was no medical evidence or witness corroboration to prove he was in a fit state to speak

Regarding Section 149, the Court distinguished between those who fired weapons and those who merely participated in the initial assault.

It was found that while Fiddu and Rajesh inflicted fatal firearm injuries, appellants Rambrat and Jalendra were only involved in dragging and physically assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks

Consequently, the "common object" to murder was only attributable to the shooters, whereas the others were guilty of rioting and causing hurt

The conviction and life sentence of Rajesh Yadav (CA 329/2019) and Fiddu Yadav (CA 1059/2019) under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were **affirmed**

The convictions of Rambrat Yadav (CA 332/2019) and Jalendra Yadav (CA 192/2022) under Section 302/149 were **set aside** and altered to convictions under Sections 147 and 323 IPC; they were sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and six months of simple imprisonment respectively, with the period already undergone to be set off