2001 (9) TMI 1134 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms conviction under Section 302 IPC, eyewitness testimony key

The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine. The sole eyewitness's testimony was ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302, IPC2. Reliability of the sole eyewitness3. Evaluation of medical evidence4. Corroboration of eyewitness testimony5. Examination of contradictions in witness statements6. Motive for the crime7. Post-crime conduct of the accused8. Framing of charges under Section 34 IPCDetailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302, IPC:The appeals were directed against the common judgment by the Sessions Judge, Golaghat, convicting the accused under Section 302, IPC, and sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with further rigorous imprisonment for one year in default.2. Reliability of the Sole Eyewitness:The prosecution's case primarily rested on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Beauty Bhowmik, the sister of the deceased. The court noted that there is no legal bar to convict based on a single eyewitness if the testimony is reliable. The court cited precedents, including Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, emphasizing that a conviction can be based on a single eyewitness if the witness passes the test of reliability.3. Evaluation of Medical Evidence:Dr. S.N. Tamuly conducted the autopsy, revealing multiple incised wounds sufficient to cause death. The medical evidence corroborated the nature and severity of the injuries described by the eyewitness. The defense did not meaningfully challenge the medical findings.4. Corroboration of Eyewitness Testimony:The court found that the eyewitness's account was corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of PW-3 Jaladhar Mazumdar and PW-2 Himangshu Paul, who arrived at the scene and confirmed the presence of the deceased and the injuries. The prompt lodging of the FIR by the eyewitness further supported her reliability.5. Examination of Contradictions in Witness Statements:The defense highlighted contradictions in the eyewitness's statements, particularly concerning the specific details of the assault. However, the court noted that minor contradictions do not necessarily discredit the witness, especially if the main narrative remains consistent. The court referred to the principle that minor embellishments should not lead to the rejection of the entire testimony if the core account is credible.6. Motive for the Crime:The eyewitness testified about a dispute over bamboo supply to the Numaligarh Refinery as the motive for the assault. This motive was considered relevant and supported by the chronology of events, including the accused arriving armed and searching for the deceased.7. Post-Crime Conduct of the Accused:The court noted the accused's conduct after the crime, including absconding from their homes and being apprehended later, which indicated consciousness of guilt and supported the prosecution's case.8. Framing of Charges under Section 34 IPC:Although no charge under Section 34 IPC (common intention) was framed, the court found that the evidence indicated the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention. The medical evidence showed that each injury was sufficient to cause death, justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.Conclusion:The court concluded that the evidence of the solitary eyewitness was reliable and trustworthy, corroborated by medical and other evidence. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. The records were ordered to be sent down.