Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed the criminal appeals and affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, upholding the life sentences and other punishments imposed by the Fast Track Court, Nalanda. The court held that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on credible eyewitness and medical evidence, and rejected arguments regarding inconsistencies and defective investigation.
Facts
The incident occurred on 4 July 2006 during a village puja. The informant and family members were sitting outside their home when the accused, armed with firearms, arrived, demanding compromise in a prior murder case. Upon refusal, they opened indiscriminate fire, killing Panchayat Sevak Suresh Yadav instantly and another relative, Shrawan Yadav, shortly thereafter, while injuring three others, including the informant’s grandfather. A FIR was registered, and after investigation, charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC, and Section 27 Arms Act were framed. The Fast Track Court convicted and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, leading to these appeals.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged contradictions in witness testimonies.
- Whether the absence of injury reports negated the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the defence’s plea of defective investigation impacted the legality of the conviction.
- Whether the appellants could be held liable under Section 34 for acts committed during the incident.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued:
- Witness statements were inconsistent with medical evidence, citing Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh to claim contradictions could render the case unreliable.
- No direct evidence that specific bullets fired by appellants caused injuries, and the absence of injury reports undermined claims of gunshot injuries.
- The investigating officer improperly began investigation before formal FIR registration, violating procedure as discussed in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP and Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar.
- Motive was unestablished for some accused, and minor discrepancies weakened the prosecution case, warranting acquittal under the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard highlighted in Sita Ram v. State of UP and Mallapa v. State of Karnataka.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- Injured eyewitnesses, PWs 2 and 5, consistently identified the accused and confirmed gunshot injuries, supported by medical evidence from PWs 7 and 11.
- Minor contradictions do not affect the core prosecution case, as established in Edakkandi Dineshan v. State of Kerala.
- The investigating officer’s immediate action post-occurrence was lawful, and procedural irregularities do not vitiate the trial if the core evidence remains intact.
- Section 34 was applicable, establishing common intention based on prior enmity and collective assault, as upheld in Gulab v. State of UP and Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka.
Analysis of the Law
The court analysed:
- The applicability of Section 34 IPC, noting that common intention can form suddenly and need not involve elaborate preplanning, relying on Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad and Gulab v. State of UP.
- Minor contradictions in testimonies do not nullify credible evidence if the core facts are consistent (Edakkandi Dineshan, Brahm Swaroop v. State of UP).
- The principle that procedural irregularities do not nullify trials unless prejudice is shown (Lalita Kumari distinguished).
- Injured eyewitness testimonies carry high evidentiary value, and medical evidence aligned with these accounts.
Precedent Analysis
The court referenced:
- Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy (inconsistencies with medical evidence to discredit prosecution, but found inapplicable here as medical and ocular evidence aligned).
- Lalita Kumari v. State of UP and Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar on FIR registration procedures (procedural lapse, not fatal).
- Edakkandi Dineshan v. State of Kerala, Brahm Swaroop v. State of UP on minor contradictions not invalidating credible testimony.
- Gulab v. State of UP, Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka on Section 34 liability in collective assaults.
- Sita Ram v. State of UP, Mallapa v. State of Karnataka on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found:
- Injured eyewitnesses’ accounts were consistent, corroborated by medical evidence and unshaken during cross-examination.
- The argument on the absence of injury reports was unfounded as the doctor (PW 7) testified on the injuries and their reports were marked for identification.
- The procedural objection on FIR registration and investigation was technical and did not impact the fairness of the trial.
- Prior enmity established motive, and the collective presence of accused with arms, threats, and simultaneous assault proved common intention under Section 34.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, reiterating the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on credible injured eyewitness testimonies, consistent medical evidence, and established motive, dismissing claims of contradictions and procedural lapses.
Implications
- Upholds the high evidentiary value of injured eyewitness testimony in murder trials.
- Reinforces that minor contradictions do not dilute credible prosecution cases.
- Affirms the applicability of Section 34 IPC in collective assaults with common intention.
- Demonstrates courts will not overturn convictions based on technical procedural lapses absent prejudice.
Short notes on cases referred and relevance
- Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy – inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, distinguished.
- Lalita Kumari v. State of UP – FIR registration, procedural guidance, not fatal here.
- Edakkandi Dineshan v. State of Kerala, Brahm Swaroop v. State of UP – minor contradictions do not invalidate credible evidence.
- Gulab v. State of UP, Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale v. State of Karnataka – Section 34 liability in collective assaults.
- Sita Ram v. State of UP, Mallapa v. State of Karnataka – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
FAQs
1. Can convictions be upheld despite minor contradictions in witness statements?
Yes, if the core prosecution case remains credible, minor contradictions do not affect the conviction.
2. Does procedural lapse in FIR registration invalidate a criminal trial?
No, unless the lapse prejudices the defence or impacts the fairness of the trial.
3. What establishes liability under Section 34 IPC in murder cases?
Common intention inferred from collective actions and participation in the assault establishes liability under Section 34.
