The High Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine its reliability, and medical evidence should support rather than contradict eyewitness accounts.

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Section 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[CrPC] seeking to challenge the impugned judgment and final order dated 25.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 1994 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 (appellants herein) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860²[IPC] and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; and vide the same judgment, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 7.

2. For the sake of brevity and continuity, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature. Lalsaheb is the deceased who was married to Kamal (PW-3), and they had three children: a daughter, Sushila (PW-4), another daughter who has not been examined and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Deceased had two brothers—Shankar (Accused No. 5) and Hanmant (Accused No. 6). Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Baban, Prakash, and Suresh) are Shankar’s sons, while Accused No. 4 is Hanmant’s son. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, is Baban’s wife. During the proceedings, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 passed away, leading to the abatement of charges against them.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the relationship between the deceased and his brothers had been strained for nearly 20 years before the incident. There had been previous criminal complaints filed between them. The deceased worked in a mill in Bombay and returned to his native village, Brahamanwadi, about 15 days before the incident. During this time, he sold a neem tree to one Shankar Kadam (PW-8). This sale angered Accused No. 2, who confronted PW-8, claiming a share in the tree and objecting to its felling. The deceased denied Accused No. 2’s claim, resulting in a heated argument between them three days before the incident, on September 23, 1987.

4. On September 26, 1987, around 6:00 PM, deceased and his son Sanjay were returning from their field to their cattle shed, where PW-3 was milking the cattle. After feeding the cattle, deceased and PW-7 started walking towards their house. About 20 paces away, Accused No. 2 attacked the deceased with a stick, striking him on the head and causing him to collapse. PW-3 rushed to his aid, shielding his body from further assault. Shortly after, Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6 arrived at the scene. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, dragged Kamal (PW-3) away by her hair, enabling the others to assault the deceased further with sticks.

5. Hearing the commotion, PW-4 rushed to the spot but was prevented from intervening by Accused Nos. 5 and 6. They threatened her with dire consequences if they tried to help. During the attack, Accused No. 1 twisted the deceased’s left hand, fracturing it. After the attackers left, PW-3 and her daughters carried the deceased back to their house. PW-3 and PW-7 then informed the village Police Patil, Vithal Ghorpade (PW-6), who accompanied them back to their home and assessed the situation. Attempts to transport the deceased to the Civil Hospital in Satara failed due to the unavailability of a vehicle. Deceased succumbed to his injuries around 11:30 PM that night.

6. The following morning, PW-4 filed a complaint at the Satara Taluka Police Station. Based on her complaint, PSI Inas Kuris (PW-9) registered a case under Sections 148, 302, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

7. The investigation began with an inquest and the collection of evidence from the crime scene, including bloodstained soil and sticks. Accused No. 7, handed over Accused No. 1’s bloodstained shirt, which was seized. On September 27, 1987, the accused were arrested. During their interrogation, Accused No. 2 led the police to recover a stick from his house, and Accused No. 1 led to the recovery of two more stick