Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Murder and Arms Act Case Based on Credible Eyewitness Testimony and Corroborating Evidence. Eyewitness accounts of related witnesses withstood cross-examination and were supported by medical and ballistic evidence, leading to conviction under Sections 148, 302/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25 and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959, and Section 6(1) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985.

Criminal appeals against convictions for murder and offences under the Arms Act and TADA.

The appellants sought setting aside of the convictions and sentences recorded by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani, in two separate trials.

The appellants were convicted for the murder of Teja Singh and for illegal possession of a country-made pistol; they appealed against these convictions.

The Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani, convicted all five appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, 1959. Darshan Singh was separately convicted under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6(1) TADA.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the murderous assault on Teja Singh. Whether the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased, could be relied upon. Whether the alleged contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence regarding the trajectory of the firearm injury vitiated the conviction. Whether the absence of seizure of the bag of vegetables allegedly carried by an eyewitness damaged the prosecution case. Whether the recovery of the country-made pistol from Darshan Singh under Section 25 Arms Act read with Section 6(1) TADA was proved despite the relationship of the attesting witness to the complainant.

Appellants contended that the eyewitnesses were close relatives and therefore unreliable, and that their evidence could not be accepted. Appellants argued that since the proceedings under Section 107 CrPC had been disposed of on October 22, 1986, there was no occasion for Jaswant Singh and Bikar Singh to be present and board the same bus as the deceased. Appellants submitted that there was a material contradiction between medical and ocular evidence because the doctor opined that the injury track suggested the victim was at a lower level, whereas eyewitnesses stated the deceased was fired at while going along the fields. Appellants contended that the non-seizure of the bag of vegetables allegedly carried by Harnek Singh belied his testimony. Appellants submitted that Niranjan Singh, who attested the disclosure statement, was the brother-in-law of Harnek Singh and therefore his evidence should not be relied upon. Prosecution argued that the FIR was lodged with utmost dispatch and contained the substratum of the prosecution case, corroborated by medical evidence. Prosecution contended that the eyewitnesses withstood lengthy cross-examination and should be believed. Prosecution relied on the testimony of Inspector Jai Narain and contemporaneous documents to prove recovery of the pistol, arguing that relationship of attesting witness alone was not fatal.

The ratio decidendi included: (1) eyewitness testimony of close relatives can be relied upon if it withstands cross-examination and is corroborated by prompt FIR and medical evidence; (2) a doctor's opinion on how an injury was caused cannot override unimpeachable ocular evidence if there is inconsistency; (3) non-seizure of a minor item such as a bag is not fatal when the witness's travel to court was undisputed; (4) recovery of a weapon pursuant to a disclosure statement is proved when the investigating officer's testimony is credible and corroborated by contemporaneous documents, despite relationship of attesting witness.

Teja Singh met with a homicidal death stands conclusively proved by the evidence of S.I. Shiv Dayal, who held inquest upon the dead body, and Dr. S.P. Menani We, however, find no reason to discard their evidence, more so, when we find that in spite of a lengthy and searching cross-examination the defence could not succeed in discriditing them in any way. Apart from the fact that the opening of the doctor as to how an injury was caused cannot over-ride unimpeachable testimony of eye witnesses in case there is any inconsistency between them, the above opinion of the doctor is not a definitive for in his further cross-examination he clarified that the victim and the assailant could be at the same level. In his disclosure statement Darshan Singh stated he had kept concealed one country made pistol in a kotha situated near tubewell hidden in the fodder and that he could get the same recovered.

On October 27, 1986, Teja Singh was murdered after alighting from a bus at Manakpur. Harnek Singh lodged an FIR with SI Shiv Dayal the same day. SI Shiv Dayal held an inquest, and Inspector Jai Narain took over investigation, recovering weapons including a country-made pistol from Darshan Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. Two charge-sheets were filed: one under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC against all accused persons, and another against Darshan Singh under Section 25 Arms Act read with Section 6(1) TADA. Both cases were tried separately by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani, and ended in conviction. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1989 and Darshan Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1989 before the Supreme Court.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 148, 149, 302
• Arms Act, 1959: 25, 27
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 107, 313
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985: 6(1)