Direct eyewitness testimony can establish guilt in murder cases, supported by physical evidence, where minor discrepancies do not diminish credibility.

JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.1990 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur convicting the appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment in Session Trial No. 633 of 1988 registered under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that Islam, i.e., the appellant and co-accused Naseem were the nephews of Mehmoodan. There was some property dispute between Mehmoodan and the accused who wanted to usurp the land of Mehmoodan. The first information report states that on 2.11.1987, at 06:00 a.m. Mehmoodan was going to answer the call of nature and when she was near the ‘gher’ of Inam Ilahi, the accused along with Altaf and Yamin assaulted her with Palkati (axe). When Mehmoodan cried for help, Shareef Ahmad, the first informant, as well as Mehardin, Hanif, Jarif Ahmad, Urmi, Kallu and some other persons rushed to the spot and saw the accused dragging Mehmoodan and assaulting her with Palkati. On seeing the informant, the assailants fled from the scene. Mehmoodan died due to injuries on her neck which were caused by the axe. The first information report was lodged at 08:30 a.m. on 2.11.1987. The distance between the police station and the place of incident is shown in the chik FIR as 9.5 Kms. The written report was marked as Exhibit Ka -1 and the chik FIR was marked as Exhibit Ka-14 in the trial court.

3. The axe stained with human blood was recovered from twenty steps away from the dead body of Mehmoodan (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘deceased’) and a recovery memo was prepared which was marked as Exhibit Ka-9 in the trial court. The stained clothes of the deceased and the jug carried by her were also collected and the recovery memo of the items was marked as Exhibit Ka-10 in the trial court. Blood stained soil and plain soil were also collected by the police from two different spots and recovery memos of the same were marked as Exhibits Ka - 11 and Ka - 12 in the trial court.

4. The inquest report was prepared at 12:30 p.m. on 2.11.1987. The inquest notes the distance between the police station and the place of incident as 11 kilometers. It is noticeable that Yamin, one of the accused referred in the first information report, was also a witness to the inquest.

5. The post-mortem of the deceased was done on 3.11.1987 at 04:00 p.m. The following ante-mortem injuries were noted on the dead body:-

“1. Lacerated wound 15 cm x 4 cm x bone cut on right side face just below right ear. All the underlying tissues and vessels were cut.

2. Lacerated wound 12 cm x 3 cm x bone cut on right side face adjacent and below to injury no.l, all underlying tissues and vessels were cuts.

3. Lacerated wound 16 cm x 5 cm x bone cut along with underlying tissues and vessels on front and upper part of right side neck adjacent and below injury no.22.

4. Lacerated wound 16 cm x 9 cm x bone deep on the front of right side chest just below injury no.3.

On internal examination, scalp right side temporal and right parietal were found to be cut. Haemotonia was present under the membrane. II and IIIrd cervical vertebra were cut into pieces. Spinal Cord cut under IInd and IIIrd cervial region. Larynx and Trachea were found cutting into pieces. Right mandible and mustoid bones were also found broken. Upper part of oesophagus was also fractured. Stomach was empty. In the doctor's opinion, the cause of death was due to Haemorrhage and shock as a result of anti-mortem injuries. The duration of the injuries at the time of autopsy was abou