Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all criminal appeals arising from a violent clash between two groups over an agricultural boundary dispute, affirming concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court for murder with common object and attempt to murder. The Court held that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly armed with sharp-edged tools and inflicted fatal blows on the heads of two individuals, causing their deaths, and grievous injuries to another.
The plea that the incident was a “free fight” covered by the Fourth Exception to Section 300 was rejected. The Court held that the assailants acted with intention to kill, using deadly weapons on vital parts of the body.
The Court further clarified that:
- Delay in lodging the second FIR was satisfactorily explained.
- Non-recovery of weapons was not fatal in the presence of strong ocular and medical evidence.
- Injured eyewitness testimony was trustworthy and fully corroborated.
All appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender forthwith, with liberty to seek remission as per law.
12
Facts
An existing land boundary dispute escalated when members of one group allegedly damaged the ridge between adjoining fields. An altercation broke out in the farmland, during which an unlawful assembly was formed. Some individuals carried sharp-edged implements like spades and agricultural tools, while others carried sticks. Fatal blows were inflicted on two persons who succumbed to head injuries, and another individual suffered multiple wounds.
Two FIRs were filed: the first by the assailants alleging assault by the opposite side, and a second by the complainant side after transporting the injured to a distant hospital. Medical evidence revealed deep incised wounds on vital parts of the skulls of both deceased persons.
The Trial Court convicted all accused for murder with common object and attempt to murder, which the High Court upheld. The present appeals challenged those concurrent findings.
Issues
- Whether the incident was a “free fight” lacking premeditation, thus falling under the Fourth Exception to Section 300, reducing liability to culpable homicide.
- Whether delay in lodging the second FIR cast doubt on the prosecution case.
- Whether the injured eyewitnesses were reliable.
- Whether non-recovery of the weapons weakened the prosecution’s version.
- Whether the concurrent findings of two courts below warranted interference under Article 136.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued that the altercation was a spontaneous rural scuffle that escalated into violence on both sides, pointing to injuries sustained by the accused. They asserted that no individual was assigned a specific role and that the circumstances suggested a free fight. It was submitted that they lodged the first FIR immediately, while the second FIR was delayed by three days, indicating embellishment.
The appellants contended that there was no premeditation, no intention to kill, and the case fit the Fourth Exception to Section 300, warranting conviction only for culpable homicide. They claimed that the prosecution’s eyewitnesses were unreliable and partisan.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that motive was well-established due to long-standing land boundary disputes. It was argued that the appellants were the aggressors, having first damaged the ridge and thereafter calling reinforcements armed with sharp weapons. The fatal injuries on the skulls demonstrated clear intention to kill.
The State defended the delay in FIR as genuine, the complainant having rushed the injured to a far-off hospital. It was contended that non-recovery of weapons was immaterial when ocular testimony and medical reports aligned perfectly.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reiterated limits of review under Article 136, emphasising that interference with concurrent findings is justified only when findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
The Court underscored that ocular evidence prevails unless inherently improbable, especially when supported by:
- Injured eyewitness testimony
- Clear medical corroboration
- Consistency across statements
The principle that injury on the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of presence was emphasised.
On intention, the Court applied factors from precedent to determine whether the act constituted murder: nature of weapon, vital part targeted, number and force of blows, pre-existing enmity, and conduct. All pointed to intention to cause death.
The medical evidence clearly proved deep incised wounds on vital parts (skulls). The conduct of the assailants showed they were not defending but attacking.
Precedent Analysis
Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court explained limits of interference under Article 136. Used to decline re-appreciation of evidence.
Shahaja v. State of Maharashtra
Clarified criteria for reliability of eyewitnesses. Applied to uphold testimony of eyewitnesses.
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
Held injured eyewitness testimony cannot be lightly discarded. Applied to recognise PW-2’s credibility.
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Listed factors to determine intention vs culpable homicide. Applied to reject the “free fight” argument.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand
Held delay in FIR is acceptable when satisfactorily explained. Relied upon to justify the late second FIR.
Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Held non-recovery of weapons is not fatal when medical and ocular evidence is strong. Applied to dismiss this defence.
12
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The appellants were the aggressors, not defenders.
- The assault was executed using sharp-edged agricultural implements, deliberately aimed at the heads of the victims.
- The nature and depth of injuries showed intention to kill, not a mere scuffle.
- Injuries on accused did not imply a free fight but resistance by victims.
- The injured eyewitness was truthful, corroborated by medical evidence.
- Delay in filing FIR was genuinely explained because the complainant transported his injured relatives to a distant hospital first.
- Non-recovery of weapons did not affect the otherwise solid prosecution case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder with common object and attempt to murder. The case did not fall under the Fourth Exception to Section 300 because the assailants deliberately inflicted fatal blows using sharp weapons on vital parts, indicating clear intention.
All appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender. They were allowed to seek remission under applicable state policy.
Implications
- Reinforces the evidentiary superiority of injured eyewitnesses.
- Demonstrates that land disputes can escalate into intentional homicides, attracting full culpability.
- Reaffirms that courts accept delay in FIR when reasonably explained.
- Establishes that non-recovery of weapon cannot derail an otherwise strong case.
- Clarifies limits on interference with concurrent findings under Article 136.