2025 INSC 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
VIKRAM NATH, J. AND HON’BLE PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.)
BABAN SHANKAR DAPHAL
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No.1675 OF 2015-Decided on 22-01-2025
Criminal, Murder
(A) Penal
Code, 1860, Sections 302/ 34 – Murder - Perverse judgment – Judgment of acquittal
by trial Court reversed by High Court - Held that a judgment is deemed perverse
when it ignores material evidence, misinterprets facts, or arrives at
conclusions that do not appear to be reasonable on the basis of the evidence
presented - High Court identified several such errors in the Trial Court’s
judgment, including disregarding credible eyewitness testimony without adequate
justification; misinterpreting the medical evidence and using it to
erroneously contradict eyewitness accounts; placing undue reliance on minor
inconsistencies while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of guilt; failing to consider
the sequence of events and the conduct of the accused in its entirety - High
Court’s approach is consistent with established judicial precedents regarding
the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases - This Court has repeatedly held
that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony should not overshadow the truth
of their statements - Similarly, it has been emphasized that medical evidence
should be viewed as an aid to corroborate eyewitness accounts rather than as
the sole determinant of facts - High Court adhered to these principles while
assessing the evidence in this case, ensuring that its findings were grounded
in sound legal reasoning - The brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated
actions of the accused demonstrated clear intent to cause grievous harm,
leading to the victim’s death - Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused not only
undermined the credibility of the justice system but also sent a troubling
message about the consequences of such heinous acts - . Therefore, the High
Court’s judgment represents a well- reasoned and legally sound decision that
rectifies the errors of the Trial Court and ensures that justice is served -
The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety, establishes the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt - High Court’s observations regarding the
reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the corroborative nature of the
medical evidence, and the perverse findings of the Trial Court are compelling
and do not warrant any interference.
(Para 43 to 36)
(B)
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34 – Murder - Testimony of related witnesses – Appreciation of
evidence - Though the eyewitnesses
who have been examined in the present case were closely related to the
deceased, namely his wife, daughter and son, their testimonies are consistent
with respect to the accused persons being the assailants who inflicted wounds
on the deceased - As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired,
one of the family members was subjected to an assault - It was thus quite natural
for the other family members to rush on the spot to intervene - The presence of
the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well
established - In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family
members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground.
(Para 30)
(C)
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/34 – Evidence - Inconsistence in oral and
medical evidence - Trial
Court based its findings on perceived inconsistencies between the testimony of
the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence - Specifically, the Trial Court found
fault with the eyewitness account of multiple stick blows to the victim’s head,
contending that the post-mortem report did not show multiple head injuries -
However, the High Court, after analysing the evidence holistically, pointed out
that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts do not render their testimony
unreliable, especially when they pertain to incidents involving sudden and
brutal violence - . It has been consistently laid down by this court
that once there is a version of eyewitness and the same inspires confidence of
the court it will be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused - A
conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness and the
medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of corroboration of
the ocular evidence.
(Para 31 to 33)
(D) The
term ‘Interested witness’ – Related witness – Held that the term
"interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the
outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due
to enmity or personal gain - A "related" witness, on the other hand,
is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their
testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the
victim - Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of
their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy - The distinction between
"interested" and "related" witnesses is that a close
relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person -
Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should
focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony - This approach
ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is
instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other
evidence in the case.
(Para
28 and 29)
JUDGMENT
Prasanna B. Varale,
J.:-The
present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court
(Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read
with Section 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[CrPC] seeking to challenge the
impugned judgment and final order dated 25.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 352
of 1994 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby High Court
convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 (appellants herein) for the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860[IPC] and sentenced them to
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each, and in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; and vide the same
judgment, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 7.
2.
For the sake of brevity and continuity, the parties are referred to by their
original nomenclature. Lalsaheb is the deceased who was married to Kamal
(PW-3), and they had three children: a daughter, Sushila (PW-4), another
daughter who has not been examined and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Deceased had two
brothers—Shankar (Accused No. 5) and Hanmant (Accused No.6). Accused Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 (Baban, Prakash, and Suresh) are Shankar’s sons, while Accused No. 4 is
Hanmant’s son. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, is Baban’s wife. During the proceedings,
Accused Nos. 5 and 6 passed away, leading to the abatement of charges against
them.
3.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that the relationship between the
deceased and his brothers had been strained for nearly 20 years before the
incident. There had been previous criminal complaints filed between them. The
deceased worked in a mill in Bombay and returned to his native village,
Brahamanwadi, about 15 days before the incident. During this time, he sold a neem
tree to one Shankar Kadam (PW-8). This sale angered Accused No. 2, who
confronted PW-8, claiming a share in the tree and objecting to its felling. The
deceased denied Accused No. 2’s claim, resulting in a heated argument between
them three days before the incident, on September 23, 1987.
4.
On September 26, 1987, around 6:00 PM, deceased and his son Sanjay were
returning from their field to their cattle shed, where PW-3 was milking the
cattle. After feeding the cattle, deceased and PW-7 started walking towards
their house. About 20 paces away, Accused No. 2 attacked the deceased with a
stick, striking him on the head and causing him to collapse. PW-3 rushed to his
aid, shielding his body from further assault. Shortly after, Accused Nos. 1, 3,
4, and 6 arrived at the scene. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, dragged Kamal (PW-3)
away by her hair, enabling the others to assault the deceased further with
sticks.
5.
Hearing the commotion, PW-4 rushed to the spot but was prevented from
intervening by Accused Nos. 5 and 6. They threatened her with dire consequences
if they tried to help. During the attack, Accused No. 1 twisted the
deceased’s left hand, fracturing it. After the attackers left, PW-3 and her
daughters carried the deceased back to their house. PW-3 and PW-7 then informed
the village Police Patil, Vithal Ghorpade (PW-6), who accompanied them back to
their home and assessed the situation. Attempts to transport the deceased to
the Civil Hospital in Satara failed due to the unavailability of a vehicle.
Deceased succumbed to his injuries around 11:30 PM that night.
6.
The following morning, PW-4 filed a complaint at the Satara Taluka Police
Station. Based on her complaint, PSI Inas Kuris (PW-9) registered a case
under Sections 148, 302, and 323 read with Section 149 of
the IPC.
7.
The investigation began with an inquest and the collection of evidence from the
crime scene, including bloodstained soil and sticks. Accused No. 7, handed over
Accused No. 1’s bloodstained shirt, which was seized. On September 27, 1987, the
accused were arrested. During their interrogation, Accused No. 2 led the police
to recover a stick from his house, and Accused No. 1 led to the recovery of two
more sticks. The forensic reports and post-mortem report were included in
the
evidence.
After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all seven
accused.
8.
After the case was committed to the Sessions Court and before the charges were
framed, the original Accused No. 5, Shankar, passed away. Consequently, the
Trial Court framed charges against the remaining accused. Accused No.6 also
passed away during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. All the
accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
9.
The prosecution presented a total of nine witnesses to support its case.
However, after evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution
had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, in its
order dated March 3, 1994, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused of the
charges brought against them.
10.
The Trial Court, after analysing the evidence presented during the proceedings,
acquitted the accused persons on multiple grounds. The primary rationale
provided by the Trial Court centered around what it perceived to be serious
inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The court noted that the testimonies
of key witnesses were riddled with contradictions and failed to form a cohesive
narrative regarding the alleged incident. Witnesses who were deemed
critical to proving the prosecution’s case either did not corroborate each
other’s accounts or provided statements that were inconsistent with other
evidence on record. It noted discrepancies in the statements of PW-3 and PW-7
regarding the time or instance at which the deceased’s arm was twisted by
Accused No. 1. Further, the Trial Court also noted that PW-3 had failed to give
a complete testimony, to the effect that she had not deposed about the attack
on her, whereas PW-4 had deposed regarding the attack on PW-3 by Accused No. 1,
thus rendering her testimony unreliable. The Trial Court observed that the
witnesses provided differing accounts of the timeline and sequence of events,
creating doubt about their reliability.
11.
The Trial Court observed that the main eyewitnesses had delayed reporting the
incident to the police, a delay that remained unexplained. Such a delay,
according to the Trial Court, cast doubt on the veracity of their testimonies.
Furthermore, the court expressed reservations about the credibility of certain
witnesses due to perceived motives for falsely implicating the accused. The
Trial Court emphasized that in cases where the evidence is primarily
circumstantial, the chain of events must be unbroken and unequivocally
point towards the guilt of the accused. However, the court found that the
prosecution failed to establish such a chain, leaving significant gaps that
raised reasonable doubt about the accused’s involvement.
12.
Another foundation for the Trial Court’s reasoning was the lack of
corroborative material evidence. The Trial Court emphasized discrepancies
between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts. According to the
eyewitnesses, the victim was struck multiple times on the head with sticks.
However, the post-mortem report did not document multiple injuries on the
victim’s head. The Trial Court observed that if the victim had indeed been
struck on the head with sticks it would have resulted in multiple head
injuries. Consequently, the medical evidence failed to corroborate the
eyewitness accounts regarding the alleged repeated blows to the victim's head.
13.
The Trial Court further held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear
motive for the crime. While it was alleged that the accused had animosity with
the deceased due to a property dispute, the Trial Court found the evidence on
this aspect vague and insufficiently corroborated. The court held that
PW-8 had not fully supported the case of the prosecution and denied that
Accused No.2 had confronted him regarding his share in the neem tree. Further,
it was held that the witnesses had given contradictory or incomplete testimonies
regarding the previous altercations.
14.
The Trial Court also observed that the overall prosecution narrative was
riddled with gaps and conjectures. For instance, the alleged presence of
certain accused at the crime scene was not corroborated by independent
evidence. On these grounds, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing
insufficient evidence to convict, and believe the guilt to be have been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.
15.
In the appeal preferred by the State against the aforementioned judgment and
order of acquittal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal.
16.
The High Court conducted a detailed reappraisal of the evidence and scrutinized
the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court. It observed that the Trial Court had
failed to appropriately assess the weight and significance of the evidence
presented by the prosecution. It noted that the Trial Court had overly
focused on minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies while overlooking the
overall credibility and corroborative nature of their accounts.
17.
It was observed by the High Court that eye-witnesses had been cross-examined at
length by the counsel for defence who had failed to make any substantive dents
in their testimonies. Further, the inconsistencies were minor and natural. The
High Court held that discrepancy about the time or instance at which the arm of
the deceased was twisted was only a minor contradiction and did not strike at
the core of their testimonies or create doubt about the act of twisting the arm
of the deceased by the Accused No. 1, as consistently deposed by the eye
witnesses. Further, the High Court held that merely because PW-3 did not depose
regarding the attack on her, it would not render her entire testimony
unbelievable, especially when from the evidence of PW-3 and the other two eye
witnesses it can be inferred that Accused No. 7 had pulled PW-3’s hair and
removed her from the body of the deceased.
18.
The High Court emphasized that discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses
are not uncommon and should not automatically lead to their rejection unless
they strike at the root of the prosecution’s case. The High Court noted
that while there were minor discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts, these did
not detract from the core narrative implicating the accused. The testimonies of
key witnesses were consistent on material points, such as the presence of the
accused at the scene and the manner of assault. According to the High Court,
the Trial Court erred in placing undue emphasis on trivial inconsistencies
rather than evaluating the evidence as a whole.
19.
The High Court also underscored the importance of evaluating the testimony of
witnesses in light of the surrounding circumstances. It noted that the Trial
Court had failed to consider the natural conduct of witnesses who might delay
reporting an incident due to fear or trauma, or unavailability of resources
like any vehicle for transportation as in the present case. In this context,
the High Court observed that the delay in filing the complaint and recording
witness statements had been adequately explained by the prosecution. It held
that the Trial Court’s failure to appreciate these explanations resulted in an
erroneous conclusion about the credibility of the witnesses.
20.
The High Court further criticized the Trial Court for failing to appreciate the
medical evidence in its proper context. While the Trial Court had
dismissed the forensic reports as inconclusive, the High Court found that these
reports, when read in conjunction with other evidence, provided significant
corroboration of the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report detailed five
ante-mortem injuries, out of which three were over left temporal region of the
head. The medical examiner opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. The High Court found that the medical
evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case and directly implicated the
accused.
21.
In addition to addressing the merits of the case, the High Court made scathing
observations regarding the procedural lapses and reasoning adopted by the Trial
Court. It held that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse and suffered from a
lack of proper judicial application of mind. The High Court observed that the
Trial Court had selectively focused on weaknesses in the prosecution’s case
while completely ignoring the strengths. It noted that the Trial Court had
applied an excessively stringent standard of proof. Such an approach, the High
Court observed, was contrary to the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence and led to an unjust acquittal of the accused.
22.
Consequently, the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s judgment and held that
the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 of the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year; but
upheld the acquittal of Accused No. 7 giving her the benefit of doubt.
23.
Appellants are before us against this order of conviction and the reversal of
their acquittal.
24.
The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before us that the
versions put forth by the eyewitnesses are not trustworthy as they are
relatives of the deceased and are thus interested witnesses. The version put
forth by PW3, who is the widow, cannot be accepted in toto and is not
consistent with the versions of PW4 and PW7. The medical evidence on record
does not corroborate the version of the eyewitness. The prosecution has failed
to establish a motive for the abovementioned incident.
The
Counsel further states that the recoveries effected from the accused persons
cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has failed to attribute specific roles
to the accused persons for the injuries which were sustained by the victim.
25.
Opposing the same, the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted
that the High Court has passed a well- reasoned order of conviction while
reversing the acquittal, and thus this appeal should be dismissed.
26.
After carefully examining the findings of both the Trial Court and the High
Court, it is apparent to us that the High Court has undertaken a meticulous and
thorough analysis of the evidence on record, identified significant errors in
the Trial Court’s reasoning.
27.
One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
eyewitnesses to the incident were all closely related to the deceased and for
prudence the prosecution ought to have examined some other independent
eyewitness as well who were present at the time of the unfortunate incident.
This was also the view taken by the Trial Court, but the High Court has
correctly rejected such an approach and held that merely because there were
some more independent witnesses also, who had reached the place of
incident, the evidence of the relatives cannot be disbelieved. The law nowhere
states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded
altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized
with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of
judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be
discarded on that ground alone.
28.
In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are
close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative
does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The
term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in
the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused
due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other
hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and
their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to
the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of
their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.
29.
The distinction between "interested" and "related"
witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954 SCR 145.] where this Court
emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely
implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a
related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of
their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded
merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent
reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. This position has
been reiterated by this Court in:
i. Md. Rojali Ali
and Ors v. The State of Assam Ministry of Home Affairs through secretary; [(2019) 19 SCC567.]
ii. Ganapathi v.
State of T.N.; [(2018) 5 SCC 549.]
iii. Jayabalan v.
Union Territory of Pondicherry. [(2010) 1
SCC 199.]
30.
Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the present case were closely
related to the deceased, namely his wife, daughter and son, their testimonies
are consistent with respect to the accused persons being the assailants who
inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events
that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It
was thus quite natural for the other family members to rush on the spot to
intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being
eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the
eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely
on that ground.
31.
Further, the High Court rightly rejected the Trial Court’s conclusion that the
eyewitness accounts were unreliable. The Trial Court based its findings on
perceived inconsistencies between the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the
medical evidence. Specifically, the Trial Court found fault with the eyewitness
account of multiple stick blows to the victim’s head, contending that the
post-mortem report did not show multiple head injuries. However, the High
Court, after analysing the evidence holistically, pointed out that minor
inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts do not render their testimony
unreliable, especially when they pertain to incidents involving sudden and
brutal violence.
32.
It has been consistently laid down by this court that once there is a
version of eyewitness and the same inspires confidence of the court it will be
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. A profitable reference
can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Pruthviraj
Jayantibhai Vanol vs Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and Ors., [(2022) 18 SCC 683.] wherein it was laid down that:
“17. Ocular evidence
is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The
evidence of PW-2 and PW-10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there
is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the
medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all
possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be
disbelieved.”
(Emphasis
supplied)
33.
Hence, a conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness
and the medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of
corroboration of the ocular evidence.
34.
The High Court emphasized that eyewitnesses are often subjected to intense
trauma during violent incidents, which can lead to minor lapses in their
recollection of specific details. In this case, the testimony of the
eyewitnesses was consistent on the critical facts: the presence of the accused
at the scene, their involvement in the attack, and the victim being beaten with
sticks. The High Court underscored that the core elements of their
testimony remained unshaken under cross-examination and were supported by other
evidence.
35.
The Trial Court gave undue weight to minor discrepancies in the eyewitness
accounts, such as variations in their descriptions of the sequence of events or
the exact number of blows inflicted. It is a well-established principle of law
that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily
render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain intact. The role of the
court is to discern the truth by considering the evidence in its totality and
not by isolating individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative.
The Trial Court erred by focusing excessively on trivial discrepancies, thereby
losing sight of the broader picture and the compelling evidence against the
accused.
36.
The High Court appropriately invoked the principle that when direct evidence,
such as eyewitness testimony, is credible and reliable, it must be given due
weight unless there are compelling reasons to disbelieve it. In this case, the
eyewitnesses were independent and had no motive to falsely implicate the
accused. Their testimony was consistent with the overall circumstances of
the case and was corroborated by the medical evidence.
37.
In the present case, there were some variations in the statement of
eyewitnesses. PW3 had failed to mention about the injuries caused to her while
she was trying to protect her husband from the attack, instead it was PW4 who
had mentioned about the assault made on PW3. There was also a variance
regarding the actual time during which the hand of the deceased was twisted,
which resulted in a fracture.
38.
According to us, these discrepancies are not of such a nature as to render
their testimony unbelievable or unreliable. Hence, the High Court has rightly
observed that the dents which are caused in the testimonies of these witnesses
by the defence do not cause impediment in inspiring the confidence of the
court. In order to render any witnesses’ testimony as unreliable, the
inconsistencies shall be material ones and of such a nature that they create
substantive doubts in the mind of the court towards the story or the chain of
events as sought to be established by the prosecution.
39.
Further, the counsels for the appellants have questioned their role in the
present crime and have contended that the postmortem report does not
assist the case of the prosecution, it becomes necessary to go through the
postmortem report. The postmortem report of the deceased suggests that the
cause of death was due to “subdural hematoma with intracerebral laceration due
to fracture of left tempo parietal region.” There were contused lacerated
wounds over the left temporal region and two abrasions. As rightly pointed out
by the High Court the injuries which were caused on the deceased person were
inflicted by various assailants. The nature of injuries suffered by the
deceased corroborates with the substantive statement of the eyewitnesses namely
PW3, PW4 and PW7.
40.
The High Court correctly interpreted the medical evidence, including the
post-mortem report, in conjunction with the eyewitness accounts. The Trial
Court’s reliance on the absence of multiple head injuries in the post-mortem
report to discard the eyewitness testimony was misplaced. The High Court noted
that the post-mortem findings did document significant injuries consistent with
an assault using sticks, including head injuries and other bodily trauma.
41.
The medical evidence confirmed the presence of a fatal injury to the head
caused by a blunt object, which was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. The absence of additional head injuries does not
negate the possibility of multiple blows being inflicted; rather, it reflects
the limitations of forensic science in capturing the full extent of injuries in
certain cases. Thus, the medical evidence did not contradict but, in fact,
supported the substance of the eyewitness accounts, as has been observed by the
High Court as well.
42.
The High Court also correctly highlighted that the Trial Court’s approach was
contrary to the well-settled principle that the benefit of the doubt must be
based on rational and cogent grounds. Mere conjectures or hypothetical
inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed
as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused.
43.
Thus, we find enough compelling reasons to uphold the High Court’s judgment and
its finding that the Trial Court’s judgment was perverse. A judgment is deemed
perverse when it ignores material evidence, misinterprets facts, or arrives at
conclusions that do not appear to be reasonable on the basis of the evidence
presented. The High Court identified several such errors in the Trial Court’s
judgment, including disregarding credible eyewitness testimony without adequate
justification; misinterpreting the medical evidence and using it to
erroneously contradict eyewitness accounts; placing undue reliance on minor
inconsistencies while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of guilt; failing to
consider the sequence of events and the conduct of the accused in its entirety.
44.
The High Court’s approach is consistent with established judicial precedents
regarding the evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. This Court has
repeatedly held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony should not
overshadow the truth of their statements. Similarly, it has been emphasized
that medical evidence should be viewed as an aid to corroborate eyewitness
accounts rather than as the sole determinant of facts. The High Court adhered
to these principles while assessing the evidence in this case, ensuring that
its findings were grounded in sound legal reasoning.
45.
The brutal nature of the attack and the coordinated actions of the accused
demonstrated clear intent to cause grievous harm, leading to the victim’s
death. The Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused not only undermined the
credibility of the justice system but also sent a troubling message about the
consequences of such heinous acts.
46.
Therefore, the High Court’s judgment represents a well- reasoned and legally
sound decision that rectifies the errors of the Trial Court and ensures that
justice is served. The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety,
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court’s
observations regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the
corroborative nature of the medical evidence, and the perverse findings of the
Trial Court are compelling and do not warrant any interference.
47.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court is
upheld.
------