2005 (5) TMI 697 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Confirms Conviction: Eyewitness Credibility, Medical Evidence Key Despite Procedural Lapses.

The SC upheld the conviction and sentence of four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC. The court found the ... - Issues:- Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC- Conviction under Section 148 IPC- Identification of assailants in the incident- Recalling and re-examining a witness- Medical evidence and its correlation with eyewitness accountsConviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC:The judgment revolves around the conviction of four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with a conviction under Section 148 IPC. The incident in question occurred on a specific date and time, where the appellants, armed with various weapons, attacked the victims, resulting in injuries and ultimately the death of one individual. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the appellants challenging the decision in the Supreme Court.Identification of assailants in the incident:A crucial aspect of the case involved the identification of the assailants by eyewitnesses. The defense contended that the incident occurred after sunset, making it difficult for the witnesses to identify the perpetrators. However, the court rejected this argument based on the timing of the incident and the circumstances under which it took place. The court analyzed the visibility conditions during the incident and the proximity of the witnesses to the events, ultimately dismissing the defense's contention regarding identification.Recalling and re-examining a witness:The judgment highlighted a procedural irregularity concerning the recalling and re-examination of a witness, PW 2 Mokam Singh. The court criticized the Sessions Judge for allowing the witness to be recalled and re-examined after giving inconsistent statements in a separate court proceeding. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules, stating that a witness should only be confronted with their previous statements and should not be given the opportunity to alter their testimony after the initial examination and cross-examination.Medical evidence and its correlation with eyewitness accounts:The medical evidence presented in the case, detailing the injuries sustained by the deceased, played a significant role in establishing the guilt of the appellants. The court addressed the defense's argument that the medical evidence conflicted with the eyewitness testimonies regarding the specific injuries caused by each appellant. By analyzing the post-mortem certificate and the nature of the injuries, the court concluded that the medical evidence aligned with the eyewitness accounts, further solidifying the prosecution's case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants based on the evidence presented, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural adherence, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, and the correlation between medical evidence and witness accounts in criminal cases.