Reliable injured eyewitness evidence and forensic corroboration sustained convictions, while inadequate sentencing hearing led to commutation of death penalty.

A conviction may be sustained on the testimony of a reliable injured eyewitness when it is corroborated by medical, ballistic and recovery evidence. On the facts, the first and third accused were found to have participated in the murders and attempt to murder, while the second accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The Court also held that sentence must follow a meaningful hearing on punishment; because the death sentence was imposed on the same day as conviction without proper sentencing hearing, it was modified to life imprisonment, taking into account the long incarceration already undergone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testimony of the injured witness and the other eyewitness, supported by medical, ballistic and recovery evidence, proved the appellants' participation in the murders and attempt to murder; (ii) Whether the death sentence imposed on the principal accused could stand when sentence was awarded on the same day as conviction without a proper hearing under the Code.

Issue (i): Whether the testimony of the injured witness and the other eyewitness, supported by medical, ballistic and recovery evidence, proved the appellants' participation in the murders and attempt to murder.

Analysis: The injured witness was found to be natural and reliable, his presence at the scene was established, and his version was corroborated by the medical evidence showing gunshot and incised injuries. The other eyewitness's presence was also accepted as probable in the surrounding circumstances. The recovery of the rifle from the principal accused, the ballistic report linking it to the empty cartridges, and the recovery of the gandasa at the instance of the third accused furnished strong corroboration. On the material on record, the second accused was given the benefit of doubt because his participation was not established with sufficient certainty.

Conclusion: The convictions of the first and third accused were sustained, while the second accused was acquitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the death sentence imposed on the principal accused could stand when sentence was awarded on the same day as conviction without a proper hearing under the Code.

Analysis: The sentencing procedure was found not to be in conformity with the requirement of a meaningful hearing on sentence under the Code. Instead of remanding the matter, the Court took into account the long period already spent in incarceration and considered the appropriate modification of punishment.

Conclusion: The death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of setting aside the conviction of the second accused and commuting the death sentence of the first accused to life imprisonment, while the convictions of the first and third accused otherwise remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may rest on the testimony of a reliable injured eyewitness when it is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and sentence must be imposed only after a proper hearing on punishment in terms of the procedural mandate.

---