Fazar Ali & Ors. v. State of Assam
Background
Twelve persons were alleged to have attacked a family with weapons like dao, lathi and dagger in Assam in 1993, and prevented the injured from being taken to hospital for about three hours until villagers intervened; one victim, Abdul Rahman, later died at the hospital. Eight of the accused were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (member of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object) and sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that only five of them were named in the original FIR (with others added later) and that contradictions between witnesses' court testimony and their earlier police statements made the evidence unreliable.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the informant's cross-examination explained the apparent discrepancy: he had named five accused himself and separately given the investigating officer the names of seven others, who were then added after investigation, which is a legitimate part of the investigative process and not a ground to discredit the FIR. Relying on its earlier ruling in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that witnesses cannot be expected to give a "picture perfect" account of a violent multi-accused incident years later, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the substance of their evidence. The Court also noted that a cross-case filed by the original complainant's family against the accused had ended in the accused's acquittal, while the trial court and High Court concurrently found that the unlawful assembly's common object was to assault and "teach a lesson" to the victims, and that denying them medical treatment for three hours directly led to the death. Finding the trial court's and High Court's concurrent appreciation of evidence to be correct, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the life sentences.
Lesson Learnt
Being named in an FIR only after investigation, rather than at the very first mention by the informant, does not by itself discredit the charge against an accused, and in a group assault case, even minor inconsistencies in individual witnesses' descriptions of events do not defeat an otherwise credible and corroborated prosecution case.