Hostile witness testimony and common intention can sustain murder conviction when evidence shows reliable participation in the assault.

Hostile testimony may still be relied upon to the extent it remains trustworthy after careful scrutiny, and corroboration from independent eyewitness and recovery evidence can establish the occurrence and participation of the accused. An inquest report under Section 174 CrPC is not meant to record the names of assailants, so omission of those names does not by itself weaken the prosecution case. Where the evidence shows common participation in the assault, conviction may be sustained with the aid of common intention even if a co-accused has been acquitted, because constructive liability depends on the appellate court's own assessment of the evidence. The discussion affirms that hostile evidence, if dependable, and corroborative circumstances may support murder liability under common intention.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testimony of hostile witnesses could still be relied upon to prove the occurrence and the participation of the accused; (ii) Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained with the aid of common intention despite the acquittal of the co-accused and the absence of a finding that the accused inflicted the fatal injury.

Issue (i): Whether the testimony of hostile witnesses could still be relied upon to prove the occurrence and the participation of the accused.

Analysis: The evidence of a witness does not stand effaced merely because the prosecution treats him as hostile. The Court held that such evidence may be accepted to the extent it is found dependable on careful scrutiny. The presence of the injured witness and the rickshaw puller at the scene was established, and their evidence proved the fact of the assault and the manner in which the incident occurred, though they resiled on the question of identity. The Court also accepted the testimony of the independent eye-witness and the recovery evidence as corroborative circumstances. The omission of the witnesses' names in the inquest report did not detract from the prosecution case, since an inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not meant to record details of the assailants.

Conclusion: The hostile witnesses' evidence was admissible to the extent it supported the prosecution, and the occurrence and participation of more than one assailant stood proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained with the aid of common intention despite the acquittal of the co-accused and the absence of a finding that the accused inflicted the fatal injury.

Analysis: The Court held that on reappreciation of evidence an appellate court is not bound by the trial court's appreciation if it reaches a different factual conclusion. Where the evidence establishes participation of more than one person in the assault, conviction can be sustained with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 even if the co-accused were acquitted and no State appeal was filed against that acquittal. The Court distinguished earlier authorities and reaffirmed that the acquittal of co-accused does not create a legal bar to recording constructive liability against the remaining accused, provided the appellate court itself finds common participation in the crime. The recovery of a bloodstained weapon and human blood on the accused's clothing further corroborated the ocular evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction for murder with the aid of common intention was upheld, and the sentence of life imprisonment was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits because the prosecution proved the assault, the accused's participation, and the applicability of common intention on a proper reappraisal of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Hostile testimony may be relied upon to the extent it is trustworthy, and an appellate court may sustain a conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on its own assessment of the evidence even where co-accused have been acquitted, if the evidence shows common participation in the crime.

---