Supreme Court Upholds High Court Conviction in Fatal Stick Assault, Dismisses Appeal

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Section 379 CrPC by appellants who challenged the Bombay High Court’s judgment convicting four persons for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The Court summarised that the High Court had correctly reappraised the evidence and found the Trial Court’s acquittal to be perverse. It held that minor inconsistencies in the ocular testimony did not vitiate the core narrative implicating the accused, and that medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 was upheld; the acquittal of Accused No. 7 was left intact. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness 'interested' or biased. The term 'interested' refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A 'related' witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy." The Court further noted that "ocular evidence is considered the best evidence" and that where such testimony "inspires confidence of the court it will be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused," with medical evidence serving as corroboration.

Background The victim, Lalsaheb, a resident of Brahamanwadi, was assaulted on September 26, 1987 while returning from the fields. Prosecution alleged that Accused No. 2 struck the deceased with a stick, others joined and assaulted him further, and Accused No. 7 dragged the deceased’s wife away. The deceased died later that night. The police registered offences including Section 302 IPC after a complaint by the victim’s daughter; recoveries of bloodstained clothing and sticks were made and the post-mortem reported ante-mortem injuries including a subdural hematoma with intracerebral laceration and fracture of the left temporo-parietal region.

At trial the Sessions Court acquitted all accused, citing material inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, delays in reporting, lack of corroboration with medical evidence and an insufficiently proved motive. The State appealed. The Bombay High Court reversed the acquittal in part: it found the Trial Court had given undue weight to minor discrepancies, had failed to consider the evidence holistically, and had misapplied legal principles concerning related witnesses and corroboration. The High Court convicted Accused Nos. 1–4 under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 each (in default one year’s RI); Accused No. 7 was acquitted.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants contended that eyewitnesses were interested relatives, that medical evidence did not corroborate multiple blows, and that recoveries and attribution of specific roles were unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s approach, relied on precedents distinguishing "interested" and "related" witnesses (including Dalip Singh and subsequent decisions), and held that the evidence, taken as a whole, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No interim directions or further relief were granted. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court judgment was upheld.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 97 (Criminal Appeal No.1675 of 2015) Case Title: Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment]