Hostile witness testimony and medical corroboration sustained murder conviction despite minor inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

Credible ocular and injured-witness evidence, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the murder conviction. The Court accepted the usable part of hostile-witness testimony and reiterated that a hostile witness is not rejected in toto if portions support the prosecution. Minor inconsistencies, delay-based criticism, and variations in narration did not displace the core prosecution version where the deceased's injuries matched the medical record and the appellants were known to the witnesses. The challenge to conviction therefore failed, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the basis of the eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and the supporting portions of the hostile witness, despite acquittal of other accused and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution case.

Analysis: The injured and ocular evidence was found to connect the appellants with the assault on the deceased. The witness who turned hostile was not rejected in toto, and the court relied on the settled principle that the evidence of a hostile witness remains usable to the extent it supports the prosecution. The Court also held that minor inconsistencies, delay-related criticism, and variations in the account did not undermine the core prosecution version, especially when the deceased's injuries were corroborated by medical evidence and the appellants were known to the witnesses. The failure to put specific questions to the post-mortem doctor on certain medical aspects also weakened the challenge to the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants was upheld and the challenge to the finding of guilt failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction can be sustained on credible residue evidence, including the dependable part of a hostile witness's testimony, and minor discrepancies or embellishments do not warrant interference where the core prosecution case is supported by medical and ocular evidence.

---