Supreme Court Affirms Murder Conviction, Upholding Concurrent Findings on Eyewitness Testimony

The present appeal arose from the conviction of appellant) by District Judge which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The appellant was prosecuted along with two co-accused for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for the murder of Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve.

The prosecution's case was that on 19.04.2005, following a prior quarrel, the appellant and the co-accused confronted the deceased in Gujri Bazar,a nd ruring this encounter, the appellant allegedly used a knife to inflict blows on the chest of the deceased, while another accused kicked him, leading to his death on the spot. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and one co-accused, while acquitting the third. The High Court affirmed this conviction.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the material on record, particularly the depositions of the eyewitnesses. **The Court noted the consistent stand of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) who were eyewitnesses, stating that the appellant was present at the scene and repeatedly stabbed the deceased. **

The Apex Court concurred with the Courts below in the opinion that the appellant failed to controvert the evidence raised against him. The Court dealt with the arguments of the appellant on inconsistencies in witness statements and delay in their recording, referring to precedents like State of Himachal Pradesh v Lekh Raj and others to which the Court held that minor and immaterial inconsistencies do not prejudice the case of the prosecution and discrepancies should be differentiated from contradictions.

According to the delay in collecting witness statements in terms of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is cause for concern, the Supreme Court held that the reasons rendered by the Investigating Officer as well as witnesses regarding the happenings of rioting in the locality and requirement to uphold the law and order were satisfactory enough and no such adverse inference as against the prosecution was necessary to be drawn.

The Court also distinguished the present case from cases where unexplained or inordinate delays were considered fatal to the prosecution. The circumstance that the informant was cross-examined as a defence witness, asserting that her availability for cross-examination and the congruence of her statements with the FIR and the other eyewitnesses were the critical points.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and accordingly dismissed the criminal appeal. While upholding the conviction, the Court noted the appellant's period of incarceration and granted him the liberty to apply afresh for premature release, directing the State Government to consider his application in light of the applicable policies and the legal principles enunciated by the Court, especially regarding the policy in vogue at the time of his conviction or any more beneficial policy.

CORAM: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Between: FIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2025 INSC 387
Date of Judgment: 24-03-2025