A conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 cannot be restored merely because the High Court's reasoning for reducing the conviction is based on surmises and conjectures. The Supreme Court must independently assess the evidence; where material inconsistencies exist concerning the place of occurrence, presence of the accused, removal of the injured and reliability of the dying declaration, and the evidence is insufficient to establish murder beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction under Section 302/34 cannot be restored. [Paras 16–17]

advocatemmmohan

 State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy, 2026 INSC 820, decided on 10-08-2026.

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 304 Part II read with S. 34 — Murder — Alteration of conviction from S. 302/34 to S. 304 Part II — Material inconsistencies in prosecution evidence — Doubt regarding place of occurrence, presence of accused and manner in which injured was taken to hospital — Conviction under S. 302/34 not restored — Where the evidence on record contained material inconsistencies creating doubt regarding the prosecution case, interference with the High Court's alteration of conviction from S. 302/34 to S. 304 Part II was not warranted, particularly when the modified conviction had not been challenged by the accused who had already undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court. [Paras 11, 16, 17]

Evidence — Dying declaration — Reliability — Seriously injured victim — Detailed narration of assault — Medical evidence showing twenty-two injuries, several of them grievous — Doubt regarding timing of medical intimation and recording of statement — Corrections and overwriting in medical intimation — Possibility of effect of tranquilizers not ruled out — Detailed “blow by blow” account by seriously injured victim raising serious doubt as to its reliability — Conviction could not safely be restored on such statement. [Paras 12–14]

Evidence — Appreciation of evidence — Prosecution witnesses — Material contradictions regarding place of occurrence and removal of injured — PW1 stating that assault occurred in the fields and that victim was thereafter taken to the graveyard and then to his residence; PW3 stating that assault occurred at the graveyard and that victim was shifted directly to hospital in a jeep — Versions not reconcilable — Doubt created regarding the place of occurrence and actual presence of accused immediately after assault — Such material inconsistencies rendered the prosecution evidence insufficient to restore conviction under S. 302/34. [Paras 8–11, 16]

Criminal trial — Appreciation of evidence — Conviction — Court cannot substitute conjecture or surmise for evidence — High Court had itself noticed that no witness had deposed to the circumstances relied upon by it for inferring absence of intention to kill — Its further observations that persons armed with deadly weapons would ordinarily remain at the scene until confirming the victim's death were based purely on surmises and conjectures — Such reasoning could not constitute a valid basis for modifying conviction — However, in the absence of sufficient evidence to restore conviction under S. 302/34, Supreme Court declined to interfere with the modified conviction under S. 304 Part II. [Para 17]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 304 Part II and 34 — Appeal against alteration of conviction — Scope of interference — Although High Court's reasoning for altering conviction was found unsustainable to the extent it rested on conjectures, the Supreme Court, on independent reappreciation of the entire evidence, found material inconsistencies in the prosecution case and insufficient evidence to restore conviction under S. 302/34 — Criminal appeal dismissed. [Paras 16, 17]

Core ratio

A conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 cannot be restored merely because the High Court's reasoning for reducing the conviction is based on surmises and conjectures. The Supreme Court must independently assess the evidence; where material inconsistencies exist concerning the place of occurrence, presence of the accused, removal of the injured and reliability of the dying declaration, and the evidence is insufficient to establish murder beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction under Section 302/34 cannot be restored. [Paras 16–17]