Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a brutal incident on 9 November 1995 at about 6:00 a.m., where 26 persons armed with deadly weapons like spears, arrows and lathis surrounded the house of Md. Aziz Ali, Md. Kutub Ali, Md. Mamud Ali and Samir Ali, trespassed into their house, dragged them outside and assaulted them. Four victims succumbed to injuries and one Md. Atar Ali was injured. The FIR was lodged at 8:30 a.m. the same day. Chargesheet was filed against 15 persons; trial proceeded against 12 accused after one died and two absconded. The Trial Court convicted eight appellants under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with 149 IPC and acquitted others. The Gauhati High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellants argued that all six eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased, motive was weak (a minor quarrel over bicycle collision the previous day), no weapons were recovered, and prosecution suppressed the death of Turen Ali from the accused group and injuries to six others. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that PW7, an injured eyewitness, gave detailed and unshaken testimony specifying overt acts of each accused, which was fully supported by other eyewitnesses PWs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. The Court held that related witnesses are not automatically interested; their evidence must be assessed for reliability. The evidence was consistent, credible and trustworthy. Minor discrepancies were natural in a group assault. The Court noted that PW8 and PW9 deposed about the death of Turen Ali, showing no suppression. Motive was not significant given ample ocular evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Related Witnesses - Testimony of close relatives of deceased cannot be discarded as interested unless they derive benefit from conviction - Court held that related witnesses are natural witnesses and their evidence must be assessed for reliability, consistency and probability - In this case, six eyewitnesses including an injured witness gave consistent testimony which remained unshaken in cross-examination (Paras 10-13). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Minor Discrepancies - Minor variations in evidence of multiple witnesses are natural in group assaults and do not affect credibility - Court held that such discrepancies are bound to occur when many accused suddenly assault victims, and do not render prosecution case doubtful (Para 14). C) Criminal Law - Motive - When ocular evidence is credible and consistent, motive loses significance - Court held that ample ocular evidence makes motive for commission of offence not so significant (Para 7). D) Criminal Law - Suppression of Genesis - Prosecution did not suppress origin of incident as two eyewitnesses deposed about death of accused party member - Court held that since prosecution witnesses disclosed injuries and death on accused side, there is no ground to conclude suppression (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with 149 IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of related eyewitnesses and despite alleged suppression of origin of incident
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court found the evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly the injured witness PW7, to be consistent, credible and trustworthy. The Court held that related witnesses are not automatically interested, minor discrepancies are natural, and the prosecution did not suppress the genesis of the incident. The conviction under Sections 148, 323 and 302 read with 149 IPC was confirmed.
Law Points
- Related witness not equivalent to interested witness
- Evidence of related witness cannot be discarded automatically
- Minor discrepancies in evidence of multiple witnesses do not affect credibility
- Motive not significant when ocular evidence is ample
