Murder conviction upheld on proof of a specific overt act corroborated by medical evidence, despite acquittal of co-accused.

A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be sustained without a separate substantive charge where the accused is specifically proved to have committed a distinct overt act, and the ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence does not by itself undermine the conviction of an accused whose individual role is separately and reliably established. The principle applied is that wrongful acquittal of others does not dilute clear proof against one accused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code without a separate substantive charge when the conviction was founded on evidence showing a specific overt act. (ii) Whether the appellant's conviction could stand when other co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code without a separate substantive charge when the conviction was founded on evidence showing a specific overt act.

Analysis: The evidence of the eye-witnesses was accepted as natural and reliable by the trial court and was corroborated by medical evidence. The appellant was specifically attributed axe blows on the neck of the deceased after the bomb attack and the post-mortem injuries were consistent with the ocular version. A conviction for murder simpliciter is permissible where a specific overt act is proved and the injury is independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, even if the charge was framed with reference to unlawful assembly.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's conviction could stand when other co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence.

Analysis: The acquittal of the other accused was held to be the result of misappreciation of the eye-witness evidence. The appellant's role was separately and specifically proved by the eye-witnesses, and the medical evidence corroborated that role. The wrongful acquittal of other accused did not dilute the clear proof against the appellant.

Conclusion: The appellant's conviction was not vitiated by the acquittal of the other accused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for murder can be sustained on proof of a specific overt act corroborated by medical evidence, and such conviction is not displaced merely because co-accused are acquitted on a faulty appreciation of evidence.

---