Kunwarpal alias Surajpal v. State of Uttarakhand
Background
Four relatives were convicted of murdering Ranjit Singh during a dispute over neighbouring agricultural land and pending litigation. They challenged the accounts of two witnesses harvesting nearby, pointing to their absence from the first information report and distance from the attack. One appellant died while the Supreme Court appeal was pending.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the surviving appellants' appeal and upheld their murder convictions and sentences; the appeal concerning the deceased appellant abated. The nearby harvest workers were naturally present, had an unobstructed view and gave mutually supporting accounts consistent with the medical evidence. Their statements were recorded on the day of the attack, and an informant who had not witnessed it was not required to name every witness in the first report. The suggested personal animosity did not undermine the credible testimony or establish false implication.
Lesson Learnt
A first information report need not list every eyewitness, especially when its author learned about the incident from someone else. Reliability depends on the witness's actual opportunity to see, prompt account and consistency with the other evidence.