Supreme Court Upholds Convictions of Accused in Double Murder Case Due to Credible Eyewitness Testimony and Valid Alternative Charge. Alternative Conviction Under Sections 302/149 and 302/34 IPC Found Not Legally Infirm Absent Prejudice.

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder under Sections 302/149 alternatively 302/34, and Sections 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The appellants sought acquittal by challenging the legality and factual basis of their convictions and life imprisonment.

The trial court and High Court had convicted the appellants for the murders of two brothers, and the appellants assailed the alternative convictions and the sufficiency of evidence.

The trial court convicted five accused under Sections 302/149 alternatively 302/34 and Sections 147, 148 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder. The High Court dismissed all five appeals, including the State's appeal seeking death penalty. During proceedings, accused No.3 Devi Das and accused No.5 Sudhakar died, leaving three appellants.

Whether the alternative conviction under Sections 302/149 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code suffers from legal infirmity. Whether the conviction of appellant Ghanshyam is sustainable despite discrepancies in the FIR regarding residence and surname, lack of direct political motive, and absence of injuries or blood stains. Whether the convictions of appellants Bandu and Raju are against the weight of evidence on record.

The appellants argued that the courts below erred in law in awarding alternative convictions with the aid of Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For appellant Bandu, it was argued that he was a resident of Badnera, at a considerable distance from Gadgenagar, which cast doubt on his involvement. For appellant Raju, it was argued that the blood group on his dhoti could not be determined, which should be exculpatory. For appellant Ghanshyam, it was argued that the FIR stated all accused were residents of Gadgenagar whereas he lived in Moraba, 2-3 kms away; he was not involved in village politics and had no motive; the FIR did not mention his surname and many Ghanshyams resided in Gadgenagar; the courts below had disbelieved his participation; and he had no injuries and no blood stains on his clothes, supporting his alibi.

An alternative conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not invalid unless prejudice is caused to the accused; omission to frame a charge or departure from the charge does not vitiate conviction unless prejudice is shown. Eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of blood-stained articles is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Discrepancies in the FIR regarding an accused's residence or surname are not fatal when the FIR is lodged immediately after the incident and other evidence such as a dying declaration provides identification. Common intention under Section 34 can be inferred from an accused's association with the group, and absence of injuries on the accused or blood stains on his clothes does not negate participation.

the omission to frame a charge or the departure from the charge cannot invalidate conviction unless prejudice has been caused. The medical findings amply corroborate their evidence. appellant Ghanshyam had come to be arrested at about 4 am. of 4th September itself which clearly shows that it was he who had been involved in the crime. the surname of appellant Ghanshyam is Agrawal. We are, therefore, not persuaded to hold that Ghanshyam was not present at the scene of occurrence and he had not shared the common intention with others in committing the crime.

Five accused were booked for trial for the murder of two Mahalle brothers that occurred on the night intervening 4th and 5th September 1978. The trial court convicted all five accused under Sections 302/149 alternatively 302/34 IPC and Sections 147 and 148 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder. The State appealed seeking death penalty, and the accused filed four different appeals. The High Court dismissed all appeals. During the pendency of the High Court appeal, accused No.3 Devi Das died. During the pendency of the Supreme Court appeals, accused No.5 Sudhakar died. The Supreme Court heard the appeals of the remaining three appellants, Jai Singh @ Bandu, Raj Singh @ Raju, and Ghanshyam.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 149, 34, 147, 148