1. Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC—fatal assault with cement pillar at cremation ground—FIR and eyewitness testimony. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 738
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ.
Mahendrasingh @ Mahendra S/o Kartar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2026 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
For the Appellant :Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.
Ocular evidence takes primacy over medical evidence unless they are totally irreconcilable. Reliable testimony from related and independent witnesses, combined with recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, constitutes a sufficient basis for conviction in murder cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Ocular Evidence vs Medical Evidence - It is well settled that if there is a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence, the ocular evidence will prevail unless found to be totally unreliable. Unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. (Paras 26, 26.1)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161 and 313 - Testimony of related witnesses - The fact that witnesses belong to the same family does not render their testimony unreliable, especially when their statements are natural, consistent, and free from material contradictions. (Para 23)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery of evidence - Recoveries made on the basis of a voluntary statement of the accused, such as the weapon used in the offence, serve as strong circumstantial evidence that reinforces the prosecution case. (Para 26.1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of an individual who was assaulted on the head with a cement-gravel pillar. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the complainant and other family members, as well as independent laborer witnesses who observed the attack. The defense argued that the eyewitnesses were unreliable, highlighted contradictions in the location of blows, and challenged the validity of the identification parade and forensic reports.
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimony of both the related and independent witnesses to be coherent, natural, and consistent. The prompts filing of the FIR and the corroboration provided by the post-mortem report regarding injuries to the head, face, and chest validated the ocular evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of the murder weapon and slippers based on the accused's statement provided sufficient corroborative evidence.
Issues: Whether the alleged contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, the lack of blood group matching in forensic reports, and the reliability of the identification parade were sufficient to create reasonable doubt to justify an acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence maintains primacy over medical evidence provided it is not totally irreconcilable. When consistent testimony from both related and independent witnesses is supported by a prompt FIR and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the chain of evidence is firmly established for conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges credibility of FIR, eyewitnesses, identification parade, recoveries, and FSL report; prosecution asserts consistent evidence and reliable witnesses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Court found eyewitness testimony credible, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries; minor discrepancies were immaterial; circumstantial evidence supported conviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Ocular testimony prevails over medical evidence unless totally unreliable; minor inconsistencies do not undermine credible eyewitness accounts. (Para 25 , 26 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld. (Para 28 , 29 )
6. Does minor discrepancy between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence render testimony unreliable?
No, unless ocular testimony is totally irreconcilable with medical evidence, it has primacy; minor variations are natural and do not vitiate credibility. (Para 25 , 26 )
7. Can family members' testimony be disbelieved solely because they are relatives?
No, related witnesses' testimony is not unreliable per se; it must be examined for naturalness, consistency, and absence of material contradictions. (Para 23 )
8. Does failure to establish motive weaken the prosecution case?
Motive is not an essential element; absence of motive does not discredit prosecution when eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are strong. (Para 14 , 27 )
9. What is the effect of procedural irregularities in identification parade and Malkhana register entries on evidence?
Such irregularities may affect evidentiary value but do not vitiate conviction when independent eyewitness testimony and other corroborative evidence exist. (Para 15 , 16 , 27 )
10. Is recovery of weapon and clothes without blood group matching sufficient to connect accused to crime?
Recovery alone may not be conclusive, but when corroborated by eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, it reinforces the prosecution case. (Para 17 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Mahendra singh S/o Shri Kartar singh, from jail against the judgment dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 02, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 31/2015 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No.214/2015, whereby the accused-appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302, of the IPC.
2. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life till the remainder of his natural life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal are that the complainant, Rajendra Kumar (PW-13) S/o Mangtu Ram, submitted a written Complaint (Ex. P-22) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, on 22.04.2015 at about 9:15 PM. In the written Complaint, he stated that he ordinarily resides at 2 K.N.G. Colony, Makkasar, and is married to Maina Devi, daughter of Deceased - Chetram, S/o Bhagirath, resident of village Rodawali. On 22.04.2015, at around 5:00 PM, he had gone to his in-laws’ house at Rodawali. His father-in-law, Chetram, was not present at the house, and upon inquiry, his mother-in-law informed him that Chetram had gone for work and had not returned. At about 8:00 PM, one person came running to the house and informed his mother-in-law, Parmeshwari Devi, that a man wearing saffron clothes, resembling a sadhu, who had been residing in the village for the past one and a half years, had assaulted Chetram on head near the boundary wall of the cremation ground. On receiving this information, he, along with his mother-in-law Parmeshwari Devi and sister-in-law Pooja, rushed to the cremation ground, where a crowd had already gathered. They saw the saffron-clad man striking Chetram on the head with a cement-gravel pillar and thereafter covering his face with mud. On noticing the presence of villagers, the assailant fled from the spot. The complainant and the persons present witnessed the condition of Chetram, who had succumbed to the head injury. The assailant, dressed in saffron attire, had been residing in village Rodawali for about one and a half years and was known to all villagers. The complainant asserted that he could identify the accused if produced before him.
4. On the basis of the above written complaint, a formal FIR No.214/2015 (Exhibit P.25) was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, IPC.
5. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under section 302, IPC.
6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Sections 302 IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and sought trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-57.
8. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely due to enmity, that the evidence was fabricated, and that he was innocent. The accused-appellant produced documentary evidence, Exhibits D-01 to D-03.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide judgment dated 07.11.2017.
10. Hence the present appeal.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case suffers from fundamental infirmities, which strike at the very root of its credibility. It was argued that the First Information Report (Ex. P.25), lodged by the complainant Rajendra Kumar, does not disclose the name of th
