In Brief
Two appellants were convicted by the trial court and High Court for murder (Section 302, IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307, IPC) in a land dispute case. They argued medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness account regarding injury causation. The Supreme Court held that injured eyewitness testimony enjoys special evidentiary status and is reliable unless major contradictions exist. Minor discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence do not diminish eyewitness primacy. The armed nature of the assault and the appellants' possession of deadly weapons demonstrated premeditation, not spontaneity. Conviction was upheld; however, given both appellants' advanced age (80 years) and 34 years elapsed since the incident, A-1 was permitted to seek remission while A-2's sentence was reduced to time already served.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.