Reliable eyewitness evidence, non-substantive FIR use, and gravity-based capital sentencing were upheld in a murder case.

Reliable eyewitness testimony was upheld because the medical evidence did not make the prosecution version impossible; a speculative mismatch between injuries and arrow use was insufficient to discard direct evidence. The first information report was treated as non-substantive evidence, usable only against its maker, and could not be relied on to reject other eyewitnesses whose accounts were otherwise accepted. On sentence, the gravity of the murders, including the attack on unarmed fleeing persons and the communal motive, justified the death penalty, and no mitigating factor warranted interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction could be rejected on the ground that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the eyewitness account and the use of arrows, (ii) whether the first information report lodged by one witness could be used to discredit the testimony of the other eyewitnesses, and (iii) whether the sentence of death required interference.

Issue (i): whether the conviction could be rejected on the ground that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the eyewitness account and the use of arrows.

Analysis: The eyewitness account was accepted by the courts below and there was no medical impossibility shown. The medical opinion did not establish that the injuries could not have been caused by the arrows recovered in the case. The alleged inconsistency was speculative, and the record did not justify discarding direct testimony of witnesses found trustworthy.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be disturbed on the basis of the medical evidence.

Issue (ii): whether the first information report lodged by one witness could be used to discredit the testimony of the other eyewitnesses.

Analysis: The first information report is not substantive evidence and is usable only to corroborate or contradict its maker. In the facts of the case, the maker was injured and under severe shock, and the contents of the report could not be treated as a reliable basis for rejecting the testimony of the other eyewitnesses. The report could not be used to discredit witnesses whose evidence was otherwise accepted.

Conclusion: The first information report did not warrant rejection of the eyewitness testimony.

Issue (iii): whether the sentence of death required interference.

Analysis: The offence was committed against unarmed persons who were fleeing in panic, and the attack was motivated by communal hatred. The manner of commission and the gravity of the murders justified the extreme penalty. No mitigating reason was found for reducing the sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence of death did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on conviction and sentence, and the concurrent findings of guilt and capital punishment were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reliable ocular evidence cannot be displaced unless the medical evidence makes the prosecution version impossible, a first information report is not substantive evidence against witnesses other than its maker, and sentence must be determined by the gravity, motive, and manner of commission of the offence.

---