Eyewitness reliability and medical evidence reduced murder liability to culpable homicide in a group assault prosecution.

Reliable eyewitness evidence, especially the testimony of an injured witness whose presence was undisputed and whose version was promptly recorded in the FIR, supported the prosecution case, and corroboration from other eyewitnesses was accepted. The Court also noted that the finding on participation of each accused was properly examined. However, the medical evidence did not show internal damage to vital organs, and the doctor did not state that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On that basis, the common object was treated as causing beatings rather than murder, and the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 was replaced by conviction under Section 304 Part II, while the other convictions and sentences were confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence, and whether the remaining convictions and sentences deserved confirmation.

Analysis: The eye-witness account was accepted as reliable, particularly the testimony of the injured witness whose presence was undisputed and whose version was promptly set out in the first information report. The evidence of the other eye-witnesses was found corroborative, and the finding that they were chance witnesses was not accepted. The Court held that the High Court had properly scrutinised the evidence against each accused and that there was no reason to disturb its findings on participation. However, the medical evidence showed multiple injuries but no internal damage to vital organs, and the doctor did not opine that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On that basis, the common object was held to be to beat the deceased rather than to commit murder.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence of life imprisonment were set aside, and the appellants were instead convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. The other convictions and sentences were confirmed.

---