IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and hurt – Merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to be interested, especially in a case where there is ocular testimony – Motive of enmity is a doubled edged weapon – Animosity alleged can even lead to accusation of false allegation on part of complainant to deliberately implicate accused.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – When a scuffle ensues, it cannot be said that witnesses; especially if they were actively involved in scuffle and were also injured, would speak of minute details of incident.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave Granted.

2. Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the accused, on the instigation of the person who was is possession of the land, reached the house of the deceased with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to the three grandchildren; as per the story of the prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the appellants herein were charged with offences under Sections 302, 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,¹[For brevity ‘IPC’]. Two were charged under Sections 324, 341 & 506 read with Section 34; who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted under Sections 323 & 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, for the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed.

3. On appeal before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais argued that there was no premeditation and no intention to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the accused carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on the deceased, even according to the Doctor who examined him at the first instance indicates that there were no incised injuries. It was also stated that the injury which resulted in death, could have been caused by an accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is clear that if at all the accused are found guilty of the alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of Section 304.

4. Sh. Yashraj Singh Bundela learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State pointed out that the injured witnesses (eye-witnesses), have spoken in tandem and it was the accused who trespassed into the house of the victims; including the deceased, and attacked them. There was absolutely no provocation on the part of the victims and it was with premeditation and intention to cause death that the accused came to the house of the deceased, armed with deadly weapons. The fact that the deceased died after 25 days in a hospital, would not result in a different finding than that of murder, since the single blow caused to the head of the deceased led to the death. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction for the offences, which charges are found to have been proved nor is there any reason to alter the sentence imposed.

5. We have gone through the entire records and depositions of the witnesses. At the outset, we have to notice that the ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of the deceased; which by itself would not result in eschewing their testimony. It is trite that, merely because witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to the interested, especially in a case where there is ocular testimony. The prosecution unequivocally proved that the altercation leading to the scuffle occurred in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused had come with deadly weapons, clearly with the intention to harm the inmates of the house, one of whom had visited the disputed property to offer prayers. That the dispute existed with reference to the land stands proved by the testimony of PW-4, a neighbour, who had gone to the house of the deceased, hearing the commotion. He testified in cross examination that there was animosity between the accused and the victims regarding the ownership of the place of worship.

6. The said statement regarding an