Reliability of injured witness testimony and absence of independent witnesses do not by themselves defeat a prosecution case

In an appeal by special leave, the SC reiterated that concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed unless perverse or unsupported by evidence. It held that failure to examine independent bystanders was not fatal where the examined witnesses were reliable and the surrounding probabilities supported the prosecution version. Minor inconsistencies between an injured witness's earlier statements and trial evidence were treated as matters of detail, not grounds to reject otherwise trustworthy testimony. On the evidence, the murder conviction of appellants 5 and 6 under Section 302 was set aside for want of proof of their participation, but their conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 149 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution case could be disbelieved for failure to examine independent witnesses at the bus stand; (ii) whether contradictions between the injured witness's earlier statements and trial testimony required rejection of his evidence; and (iii) whether the conviction of the appellants, particularly for murder, could be sustained on the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution case could be disbelieved for failure to examine independent witnesses at the bus stand.

Analysis: The evidence was assessed in the context of the limited scope of interference in an appeal by special leave. The absence of strangers as witnesses was held not fatal where the broad probabilities supported the prosecution version and the witnesses examined were otherwise reliable. The Court accepted that bystanders often avoid involvement in serious crimes and that evidence cannot be discarded merely because independent witnesses were not produced.

Conclusion: The failure to examine independent witnesses did not vitiate the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether contradictions between the injured witness's earlier statements and trial testimony required rejection of his evidence.

Analysis: The injured witness was treated as a natural and important eyewitness. The discrepancies noted were held to be matters of detail and not contradictions going to the root of the prosecution story. The Court applied the settled approach that minor inconsistencies, errors of perception, lapse of memory, and embellishments do not warrant wholesale rejection of otherwise trustworthy testimony.

Conclusion: The contradictions were insufficient to discard the injured witness's testimony.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction of the appellants, particularly for murder, could be sustained on the evidence.

Analysis: The Court relied on the prior complaint and dying declaration to identify the participation of the accused and found that appellants 5 and 6 were not shown to have participated in the murder of Trikam, though their liability for the assault on Devji remained established. Benefit of doubt was extended only on the murder charge, while the conviction for attempt to murder was maintained.

Conclusion: The conviction of appellants 5 and 6 under Section 302 was set aside, while their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 was maintained; the remaining appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the prosecution case substantially, granted partial relief only on the murder conviction of appellants 5 and 6, and otherwise sustained the convictions and sentences.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal by special leave, concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are unsupported by evidence or are perverse, and minor discrepancies or the absence of independent witnesses do not justify rejection of otherwise trustworthy evidence.

---