Summary of Recent judgment

Case: State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus Ors.

Date of Order / Judgment: 12 th January, 2024

The Matter Heard By Bench of : Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra


In the case at hand, A1, A2, A3 and A4 were named as accused for allegedly beating and assaulting the deceased. A1, A2 and A3 namely were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court, while deciding on the Appeal preferred by A1, A2 and A3, dismissed the appeal of A3 and A2, but allowed in part and acquitted A1 of the charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC but maintained his conviction for offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced him for the period already undergone. Meanwhile, A3 died, A1 was partly convicted and A4 was discharged. Thus, the conviction of A2 only persists. Aggrieved by this decision, A2 filed a separate appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC.


Whether the conviction of A2 under Section 302 IPC was justified?


The Court after examining the material evidences placed on record it doubted the testimonies made by the prosecution witnesses and observed that “For trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness. When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be relied without strong corroboration.”


Thus, the court held that the credibility of prosecution evidence is under serious doubt because of twisting of facts and improvements made. The court also found that it is not safe to convict A2 for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC on the basis of statement of eyewitness. Therefore, Court set aside the conviction for the offences committed under Sections 302 and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.