Murder conviction requires proof of direct role or common intention, while clear eyewitness and medical evidence sustained grievous hurt liability.

Conviction for murder could not be sustained where the evidence showed no overt act by the appellant in causing the deaths and no common intention to kill was proved; the murder conviction was set aside. The Court reaffirmed that, in an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only on substantial and compelling reasons and not because another view is possible. However, the conviction for grievous hurt was upheld because the injured eyewitness gave a consistent account of the appellant assaulting her with a chopper, and that testimony was corroborated by medical evidence of grievous injuries.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained when the evidence showed no overt act by him in causing the deaths and no common intention to kill was established. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing grievous hurt to the injured eyewitness was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained when the evidence showed no overt act by him in causing the deaths and no common intention to kill was established.

Analysis: The injured eyewitness gave a consistent version in the first information report and in court that the appellant assaulted her, while the assaults on the two deceased were specifically attributed to the other accused. The evidence did not show that the appellant assaulted either deceased or instigated the fatal attacks. The courts below had also found that the element of common intention to commit murder was absent. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when substantial and compelling reasons exist, and the trial court's possible view on the evidence cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible. On the record, no material supported the appellant's conviction for murder.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing grievous hurt to the injured eyewitness was justified.

Analysis: The injured eyewitness's testimony that the appellant assaulted her with a chopper was found cogent, consistent, and supported by the medical evidence showing grievous injuries. The note of the appellant's name in the wound certificates did not outweigh her clear ocular account, but her evidence did establish his role in causing grievous hurt. On that basis, the conviction for grievous hurt was upheld.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was acquitted of murder but remained liable for grievous hurt, with the sentence under Section 326 sustained and the matter otherwise concluded in his favour only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a conviction cannot be sustained for murder in the absence of evidence showing the accused's direct role or common intention in the fatal assault, but a conviction for grievous hurt may stand where the injured eyewitness's clear and consistent testimony is corroborated by medical evidence.

---