Eyewitness and corroborative evidence upheld murder convictions, but death sentences failed for lack of a separate sentencing hearing.

Reliable eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical, ballistic and recovery evidence, was held sufficient to sustain the murder convictions despite minor inconsistencies in narration, timing and distance of firing; the convictions under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The Court also held that a death sentence cannot stand unless the accused is separately heard on sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC after conviction; because that procedure had not been followed, the death sentences were set aside and the matters remitted for fresh sentencing. The convictions and life sentences of the remaining appellants were confirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution evidence of eyewitnesses and corroborative material established the convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) Whether the sentences of death could be sustained without a separate hearing on sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution evidence of eyewitnesses and corroborative material established the convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The Court accepted the testimony of the principal eyewitnesses as reliable, noting that the High Court and the trial court had concurrently found them trustworthy. It held that minor discrepancies in the narration, timing, number of shots, and distance of firing did not discredit the core prosecution version. The medical evidence was found substantially consistent with the ocular evidence. The recoveries of empties and the guns at the instance of the accused, together with the ballistic evidence, furnished strong corroboration.

Conclusion: The convictions under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentences of death could be sustained without a separate hearing on sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court applied the requirement that after conviction, the accused must be heard separately on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since that procedure had not been followed in respect of the death sentences, those sentences could not stand. The Court distinguished the rule relating to de novo trial on conviction and held that remand was confined to sentencing.

Conclusion: The death sentences were set aside and the cases of the three appellants were remitted for fresh hearing on sentence; the convictions remained undisturbed. The convictions and life sentences of the remaining appellants were confirmed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was proved, but the death sentences required a fresh sentencing hearing, resulting in a partial allowance limited to sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings upholding reliable eyewitness evidence, supported by medical, ballistic, and recovery evidence, can sustain conviction despite minor discrepancies; however, a sentence of death cannot be maintained unless the accused is separately heard on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---