Corroborated eye-witness evidence and parity in benefit of doubt sustained convictions for others but not for Jamallu.

Trustworthy injured and eye-witness testimony, when materially corroborated by medical evidence, was held sufficient to sustain conviction despite minor inconsistencies and non-recovery of weapons. An accused named in the first information report did not ordinarily require a test identification parade where identification was otherwise reliable, and that objection was rejected. Jamallu was found entitled to the same benefit of doubt as Daud Khan on parity of facts, so his conviction was set aside, while the convictions and sentences of the remaining appellants were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the testimony of the injured and eye witnesses, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite minor inconsistencies and non-recovery of weapons; (ii) whether a test identification parade was necessary when the accused had been named in the first information report; (iii) whether the appellant Jamallu was entitled to the same benefit of doubt as Daud Khan.

Issue (i): whether the testimony of the injured and eye witnesses, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite minor inconsistencies and non-recovery of weapons.

Analysis: The injured witness and the two eye witnesses gave a substantially consistent account of the occurrence. Their evidence was corroborated by the post-mortem and injury reports, which established homicidal deaths and injuries consistent with the prosecution version. Minor discrepancies were held not to undermine the core prosecution case. The absence of recovery of the weapons did not discredit trustworthy ocular evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction on the basis of the ocular and medical evidence was upheld against the appellants, except where separate benefit of doubt was granted.

Issue (ii): whether a test identification parade was necessary when the accused had been named in the first information report.

Analysis: The accused persons were named in the first information report and the occurrence took place in circumstances where identification was found reliable. In such a situation, a test identification parade was not considered necessary.

Conclusion: The objection based on absence of test identification parade was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant Jamallu was entitled to the same benefit of doubt as Daud Khan.

Analysis: Since Daud Khan had already been given the benefit of doubt and Jamallu stood on the same footing, parity required similar treatment. The Court accepted that Jamallu should not be treated differently on the facts found.

Conclusion: Jamallu was held entitled to benefit of doubt and his conviction was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of the remaining appellants failed, while Jamallu succeeded on the ground of parity and benefit of doubt; the convictions and sentences were sustained for the others and reversed for Jamallu.

Ratio Decidendi: Trustworthy eye-witness testimony, especially of an injured witness, when materially corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction notwithstanding minor inconsistencies or non-recovery of the weapon, and an accused named in the first information report does not ordinarily require a test identification parade.

---