Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ravindra (father), Ashish, and Vaibhav (sons), were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, for the murder of their neighbour Pramod, as well as for causing hurt and criminal intimidation. The incident occurred on 22 November 2014, around 10:00 a.m., when the appellants allegedly assaulted Pramod with wooden sticks after a history of strained relations over a property dispute and a previous complaint of outraging modesty. The deceased's wife, Sangita (PW-1), and daughter, Kranti (PW-3), who were also injured in the attack, testified as eyewitnesses. An independent neighbour, Suresh (PW-4), corroborated their account. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 324, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fines. The appellants appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and found that the testimony of PW-1 Sangita and PW-3 Kranti was credible and consistent, despite minor discrepancies about the exact location of the assault. The court noted that PW-3 Kranti's admission that her police statement was read over to her did not discredit her evidence, as she was an injured eyewitness and her testimony remained unshaken. The court also upheld the trial court's reliance on PW-4 Suresh as an independent corroborative witness. The defence's alternative theory of accidental death was rejected. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction based on injured eyewitness testimony - Sections 302, 324, 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellants were convicted for murder of deceased Pramod by assaulting him with sticks. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses PW-1 Sangita and PW-3 Kranti, corroborated by independent witness PW-4 Suresh. Minor discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence did not affect the credibility of the eyewitnesses. Held that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction (Paras 10-12, 18). B) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witness - Reading of police statement before testimony - Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The trial court discarded the evidence of PW-3 Kranti because she admitted that her police statement was read over to her before giving evidence. The High Court held that such admission does not automatically render the testimony unreliable; the court must appreciate the evidence as a whole. Since PW-3 Kranti was an injured eyewitness and her testimony remained unshattered, her evidence was credible. Held that the trial court erred in outrightly rejecting her testimony (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, and whether the trial court erred in discarding the evidence of PW-3 Kranti solely because she admitted that her police statement was read over to her before testifying.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
