Credible injured eyewitness evidence and medical corroboration sustained murder conviction despite alleged FIR delay and minor contradictions.

Homicidal death was proved by medical evidence showing multiple incised injuries, haemorrhage, and shock caused by cutting of the carotid vessels and jugular veins. The injured eyewitness was accepted as reliable because her presence at the scene was established, her injuries were medically supported, and the alleged omissions and contradictions were treated as minor and not affecting the prosecution case. The occupants of the Matador corroborated her account of the assault and its immediate aftermath. Delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate did not undermine the prosecution version, as the witness consistently stated it was lodged on the day of occurrence. The common object to commit murder and the unlawful assembly were established, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the basis of the eyewitness account of the injured witness, the supporting witnesses from the Matador, and the surrounding circumstances, including the alleged delay in transmission of the FIR.

Analysis: The dead body was found to bear multiple incised injuries, and the medical evidence established death by excessive haemorrhage and shock caused by cutting of the carotid vessels and jugular veins, thereby proving homicidal death. The evidence of the injured eyewitness was accepted as trustworthy because she was found to be present at the scene, her injuries were medically supported, and the material omissions and contradictions relied upon by the defence were regarded as trivial and not affecting the core of the prosecution case. The testimony of the occupants of the Matador sufficiently corroborated her presence and the immediate aftermath of the assault. The mere fact that the FIR reached the Magistrate later did not dislodge the prosecution version, since the witness consistently stated that it was lodged on the day of occurrence. The evidence also established that the appellants acted with a common object to commit the murder, constituting an unlawful assembly.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the challenge to the prosecution evidence and the FIR was rejected.

---