Credible eyewitness evidence and inferred common intention sustained murder conviction despite minor medical discrepancies and failed alibi.

Credible eyewitness testimony can sustain a murder conviction even when minor discrepancies appear between ocular and medical evidence, because medical opinion is not conclusive if the eyewitness account is otherwise trustworthy. A plea of alibi fails where the supporting documents are general and do not exclude the accused's presence at the scene at the relevant time. Common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can be inferred from concerted conduct and surrounding circumstances; prior concert or identical acts are not required. On the accepted evidence, joint liability for murder was upheld and the convictions and sentences were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the eyewitness account despite alleged discrepancies with medical evidence and the defence version of false implication. (ii) Whether the plea of alibi was established in favour of the appellants. (iii) Whether the appellants, on the proved facts, were liable for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the eyewitness account despite alleged discrepancies with medical evidence and the defence version of false implication.

Analysis: The Court found that the first information was lodged almost immediately after the occurrence, leaving no scope for deliberation or fabrication. The testimony of the eyewitness was examined in detail by the courts below and was found credible and trustworthy. Minor variance between ocular and medical evidence was held not to discredit a cogent eyewitness account, and medical opinion could not be treated as conclusive where the eye-witness version was otherwise reliable.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustainable on the basis of the eyewitness evidence, and the alleged inconsistency with medical evidence did not create a reasonable doubt in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of alibi was established in favour of the appellants.

Analysis: The documents relied upon to support the plea of alibi were found to be general in nature and insufficient to establish absence from the scene at the relevant time. The warning notice relied upon by one appellant did not exclude his presence at the place of occurrence. The courts below had rejected the alibi after proper scrutiny of the materials, and no infirmity was found in that approach.

Conclusion: The plea of alibi failed and was rightly rejected against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants, on the proved facts, were liable for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court held that common intention may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, and that prior concert or identical acts are not essential. Participation in the criminal act in furtherance of a shared intention is sufficient to attract joint liability. On the evidence accepted as trustworthy, the appellants acted in concert and their different acts formed part of the same criminal transaction resulting in death.

Conclusion: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was correctly applied, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were found to be without merit, and the convictions and sentences under the principal charges were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where eyewitness evidence is found credible, minor medical inconsistencies do not displace it; and common intention under Section 34 may be inferred from concerted participation in the criminal act even if the individual acts are different in character.

---