The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating witness credibility, identifying material contradictions in their testimonies, and considering the significance of medical evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

A. Facts

2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11th January 2019 in Criminal Appeal No 5307 of 2008.

3. The appeal before the High Court arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Badaun dated 30 July 2008 in Sessions Trial No 499 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No 61 of 2002 registered under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860¹[“IPC”] at Police Station Dataganj District Badaun. The Sessions Judge convicted Rajaram, Rajesh, Subhash, Rampal, Shiv Dayal and Gyanvati for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the IPC. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and to rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC.

4. The first information report²[“FIR”] was registered at 14:30 hours on the complaint lodged by PW-1 Vedram on 16 February 2002. The FIR records that at 11 am on the date of the incident, the informant was sitting in proximity to the village well on a cot with his brother Surender and his father was sitting on the terrace. At that point, Rajaram and Rajesh who were armed with pistols, Subhash and Rampal who were armed with country made pistols, Shiv Dayal with an axe and Gyanvati, wife of Rajaram, armed with a knife arrived at the scene. Rajaram, Rajesh, Subhash and Rampal are alleged to have fired from their pistols at his brother Surender. Shiv Dayal, who was armed with an axe and Gyanvati are alleged to have assaulted Surender on his neck. The informant states that he then ran towards his house and informed, among others, his father who was on the terrace. The accused upon being challenged are alleged to have run away from the scene of incident. The informant also stated that the deceased was accused in the murder of the father of Rajesh, for which the trial was ongoing before the court.

5. The case of the prosecution at the trial principally rested on the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The postmortem of the deceased, Surender was conducted on 17 February 2002 by PW-4, Dr R.K. Rohatgi. Among the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution, Vedram is the informant, while PW-2, Jagdish is an alleged eye witness who is stated to have witnessed the incident while passing by from the village pond.

6 The postmortem indicated the following nine injuries on the deceased:

“1. IW on posterior aspect of Rt. arm area 5.0 cm x 2.0 cm x muscle deep just above wrist.

2. IW on the outer aspect of mid of neck 9.0 cm x 3.0 cm x vertebra deep.

3. IW on the posterior aspect of left sleeve area 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep 11 cm below elbow.

4. IW on the posterior aspect of left sleeve area 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep 6.0 cm above wrist.

5. IW on the left side 8.0 cm x 8.0 cm x muscle deep and 1.0 cm below lip.

6. LW on the right side upper lip 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep.

7. LW Fire arm wound of entry on the right side chest 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm x cavity and 8.0 cm above the right nipple blackening present around wound.

8. LW on the top of right side of skull 4.0 cm x 2.0 cm x scalp deep 10 cm above the right ear.

9. Contusion on the left side of face 7.0 cm x 2.5 cm and 3.0 cm to ear.”

7 The Sessions Judge found the accused guilty principally on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. The Sessions Judge held that:

(i) Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it was proved that the dece