Injured eyewitness testimony and juvenile protection sustained conviction, while sentence was modified for a proved juvenile.

In a house dacoity with murder prosecution, the Court accepted the evidence of injured and natural witnesses as reliable because it was corroborated by the prompt first information statement, medical injury evidence, and the post-mortem material; the absence of the investigating officer and post-mortem doctor was not shown to have caused real prejudice, so the conviction was upheld. For the appellant found to be about 15 years old at the time of occurrence, juvenile law protection applied: the conviction remained intact, but the sentence was modified, with release on probation of good conduct and compensation substituted for custodial punishment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for dacoity with murder could be sustained on the evidence of related and injured witnesses despite non-examination of the investigating officer and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem; (ii) whether appellant Rajendra Singh, being a juvenile on the date of occurrence, was entitled to the benefit of the juvenile law and a modified sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for dacoity with murder could be sustained on the evidence of related and injured witnesses despite non-examination of the investigating officer and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.

Analysis: The injured inmates of the house were natural witnesses to the nocturnal occurrence, and their testimony was corroborated by the prompt fard-beyan, the medical evidence of injuries, and the post-mortem material. The mere fact that many witnesses were family members did not render their evidence unreliable when the occurrence took place inside the dwelling house at dead of night. Non-examination of the investigating officer did not cause demonstrable prejudice, since no vital contradiction or omission affecting the place of occurrence or the identity of the assailants was shown. The non-examination of the post-mortem doctor was also not fatal because the report was otherwise proved and the medical evidence supported the ocular version.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellants for the offence proved was upheld and the challenge to the prosecution case on the grounds of interested witnesses, non-examination of the investigating officer, and non-examination of the post-mortem doctor failed.

Issue (ii): Whether appellant Rajendra Singh, being a juvenile on the date of occurrence, was entitled to the benefit of the juvenile law and a modified sentence.

Analysis: On the materials on record, Rajendra Singh was treated as about 15 years old at the time of occurrence. The Court applied the juvenile law to him and held that, while the conviction could stand, the sentence had to be moulded in accordance with the statutory protection available to a juvenile. The Court accordingly directed release on probation of good conduct and awarded compensation in place of custodial punishment.

Conclusion: The conviction against Rajendra Singh was maintained, but the sentence was modified by extending juvenile relief and directing release on probation of good conduct with compensation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits as to conviction, but partial relief was granted only to the appellant found to be a juvenile by modifying the sentence under the juvenile law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a house dacoity case, the evidence of injured natural witnesses may be safely relied upon despite the absence of the investigating officer or the post-mortem doctor unless actual prejudice is shown, and a convict proved to be a juvenile at the time of occurrence may receive the statutory benefit of the juvenile law while the conviction is sustained.

---