CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 – Section 154 – Discrepancy as to place of lodging FIR – Testimony of eye-witness that writer of FIR was taken to spot – However, Police Sub-Inspector deposing that FIR was lodged in Police Station – Abundant evidence on record to show presence of eye-witness on spot – Discrepancy, held, not fatal.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 3 – Conduct of witnesses – Maurder of four persons on agricultural land – Defence plea that witnesses ran away instead of rescuing deceased persons and therefore their version unbelievable – Evidence showing that accused persons first attacked one deceased and other three lost their life while rescuing first victim – Running away from place after watching four ghastly murders cannot be termed as unnatural conduct – Plea is liable to be rejected.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 3 – Interested witnesses – Evidence of interested witnesses cannot be ignored by court if it is corroborated by other materials on record.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 3 – Time of incident – Primacy of ocular evidence qua medical evidence – All eye-witnesses stating that incident occurred at 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. – Plea that post-mortem report showed undigested food in stomach of deceased and hence incident might have occurred between 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. immediately after deceased had food is not tenable.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 8 – Motive – When the existence of ill-will, enmity between parties established with other relevant facts, there is no need to establish motive.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 24 – Extra-judicial confession – Murder – It should be so strong that it should not lead to doubt – When the witness before whom accused confessed about killing four persons, turned hostile, the extra-judicial confession cannot be relied on.

       INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 – Section 118 – Competence of witness – Plea of witness suffering from mental illness – Witness answering almost all questions consciously – No irrelevant answers given by him – Evidence of witness cannot be discarded.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Accused persons allegedly committing murder of four persons on account of land dispute – Homicidal death established by testimony of witnesses and medical evidence – Existence of rivalry between parties on issue of land dispute established by oral as well as documentary evidence – Evidence of eye-witnesses, which were consistent and reliable, could not be rejected merely because they were interested – Discrepancy in evidence as to place where FIR was registered, is not material in view of other reliable evidence on record – Non-examination of adjoining landowners is also not fatal in the absence of any material to show their existence on spot at relevant time – Prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubts – Conviction of accused, held, proper.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Plea that deceased was also possessing weapons – Accused persons allegedly committing murder of four persons in their agricultural land – Plea that some sickles were lying in field of deceased – No evidence to show that deceased were holding sickles at time of incident – No defence by accused that they used weapons against deceased in private defense – Held, Mere presence of sickles in land, would not absolve accused persons from charge of murder.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Weapon of injury – Posture of injured and assailant and also pressure of blow are important factors to decide connection between weapon and injury – Plea that injuries caused to deceased could not be caused by axe as alleged by prosecution – Injuries caused to deceased were all chopped wounds – Doctors stating that chopped wounds could be caused by axe – Plea held, liable to be rejected.

       INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Rarest of rare case – Balancing, mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Accused persons committing murder of four persons on issue of land dispute – Accused, not menace to society – Absence of criminal history – Possibility of reformation as accused only 21 years of age – Accused not causing hindrances in trial and not misbehaving while undergoing long incarceration – Murder committed as a result of land dispute and no direct motive attributable to accused – No meeting of minds or pre-plan – Some contradictions, omissions, lapses in investigation – Mitigating circumstances are persuasive aggravating circumstances – Moreover, accused was not questioned on sentence as required by Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment.