Credible eyewitness evidence, corroborated by medical material, upheld conviction despite partisan witnesses and related procedural objections.

Credible eyewitness testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence and other objective material, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite claims that some witnesses were partisan. The acquittal of some co-accused did not weaken the case against the appellants because the evidence against them was separately supported and the co-accused were assessed on a different evidentiary basis. Forwarding of the first information report to the Magistrate within about six hours was treated as reasonable in the circumstances and not fatal to the prosecution. The absence of blood on recovered weapons also did not create an adverse inference where the weapons had been recovered from flowing water.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' convictions were liable to be set aside on the grounds that the eyewitnesses were partisan, some accused had been acquitted on the same evidence, there was delay in forwarding the first information report to the Magistrate, and no blood was found on the recovered weapons.

Analysis: The eyewitness account was found credible and was corroborated by medical evidence and the objective findings of the investigating officer. The mere fact that the witnesses were related or partisan did not by itself justify rejection of their testimony. The acquittal of some co-accused did not undermine the case against the appellants because the evidence against those acquitted was disbelieved on the basis of want of medical corroboration, whereas the evidence against the appellants was supported by other material. The forwarding of the first information report to the Magistrate within about six hours was held to be within reasonable time having regard to the circumstances, and in any event such delay would not by itself discredit an otherwise trustworthy prosecution case. The absence of blood on the recovered weapons was explained by the fact that they had been recovered from flowing water, and no adverse inference was warranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed; the findings of guilt and the sentences were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony, supported by medical and other objective evidence, is not displaced merely because some witnesses are partisan, some co-accused are acquitted on different evidentiary appraisal, or there is no unexplained and material delay in forwarding the first information report.

---