A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the evidentiary limits of criminal conviction resting upon the sole testimony of a related eye-witness in a prosecution for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court scrutinised whether the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court could be sustained when the prosecution case suffered from serious inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and conduct of the alleged eye-witness that was incompatible with normal human behaviour.

The Court undertook a detailed evaluation of the ocular testimony of PW-1, the sole remaining eye-witness, in light of medical evidence, surrounding circumstances, and procedural lapses in investigation. Particular emphasis was placed on the improbability of the conduct of the deceased’s brothers during and immediately after the assault, discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular narration regarding the duration and nature of the assault, and suspicious entries in the medico-legal certificate.

The Court reiterated settled principles under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that conviction can rest on a single witness only when such testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence. Finding the prosecution version riddled with doubts and unsupported by corroborative evidence, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside the conviction. The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity on appreciation of evidence, hostile witnesses, and the centrality of natural human conduct in criminal adjudication.

Keywords: sole eye-witness, unnatural conduct, benefit of doubt, ocular vs medical evidence, hostile witnesses

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder with common intention under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Delhi. The prosecution case was founded primarily on the testimony of one alleged eye-witness, PW-1, the brother of the deceased, after two other cited eye-witnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether such conviction could be sustained when the prosecution narrative appeared inherently improbable and unsupported by independent corroboration.

The factual matrix disclosed a violent assault allegedly carried out by three accused persons using hockey sticks and a knife, resulting in multiple injuries and eventual death of the victim. While the Trial Court accepted the prosecution version in its entirety, the High Court concurred without critically re-evaluating the evidentiary inconsistencies highlighted by the defence. The appellants contended that the prosecution suffered from unexplained delays, unreliable recoveries, hostile witnesses, and grave discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence.

The background of the case is significant as it involved admitted prior enmity between the parties, given that the deceased had earlier been prosecuted for the murder of the father of one of the accused. This backdrop necessitated careful judicial scrutiny of the evidence to rule out false implication driven by motive for vengeance. The Supreme Court, therefore, revisited the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly where conviction rests on the testimony of a single related witness whose conduct appears unnatural.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 03.08.1990 at about 10:00 PM, the deceased Devinder Singh @ Ladi was allegedly walking with his two brothers, PW-1 Parminder Singh and PW-11 Amar Singh, towards a taxi stand at Sukhdev Market, New Delhi. According to the prosecution, the appellants intercepted the deceased near Qumayun Restaurant and assaulted him with hockey sticks and a knife. PW-1 claimed that when he and PW-11 attempted to intervene, the assailants threatened them with dire consequences, forcing them to remain passive spectators.

The deceased sustained fifteen ante-mortem injuries, including fatal stab wounds to the chest and abdomen. A PCR van arrived after approximately fifteen minutes, acting upon information from an unknown caller, and removed the injured to AIIMS, where he was declared brought dead. The police registered an FIR on the basis of PW-1’s statement and conducted investigation, leading to alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of the accused.

During trial, out of the three projected eye-witnesses, PW-11 and PW-5 resiled from their earlier statements and failed to support the prosecution. The conviction thus rested solely on PW-1. The defence highlighted serious infirmities such as delay in FIR, suspicious MLC entries showing the deceased as “unknown,” absence of names of brothers initially, lack of effort to provide immediate medical aid, and improbability of inflicting fifteen injuries within five minutes. The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court dismissed the appeal, prompting the present challenge before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the testimony of a single related eye-witness whose conduct appears unnatural?
ii. Whether material discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case?
iii. Whether failure to corroborate the sole eye-witness testimony through independent or circumstantial evidence warrants benefit of doubt?
iv. Whether investigative lapses relating to weapon recovery and medical opinion undermine the prosecution case?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the conviction was unsafe as it rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW-1, whose conduct was contrary to normal human behaviour. It was argued that the failure of the two brothers to attempt rescue or seek immediate medical aid rendered their presence doubtful. The appellants further contended that PW-11 and PW-5 turning hostile fatally weakened the prosecution case.

The defence emphasised the discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence, pointing out that infliction of fifteen injuries within five minutes was improbable. It was also argued that the MLC entries, initially recording the victim as unknown and naming only a Head Constable as the accompanying person, contradicted the prosecution version that the brothers accompanied the deceased to hospital. The absence of medical opinion linking the injuries to the recovered knife with a broken tip was highlighted as a serious lapse.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State submitted that conviction can legally be based on the testimony of a single witness under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, provided such testimony is credible. It was argued that hostile witnesses do not efface the prosecution case entirely and that minor investigative lapses should not overshadow substantive evidence. The State relied on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and urged judicial restraint in interfering with such findings.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
ii. Section 34 IPC – Common intention
iii. Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act – Illegal possession and use of arms
iv. Section 134 Evidence Act, 1872 – Number of witnesses

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous re-appreciation of evidence and found the prosecution version unreliable. The Court reiterated that while conviction can rest on the testimony of a single witness, such evidence must be wholly trustworthy. Examining PW-1’s testimony, the Court found his conduct during the assault unnatural, particularly his failure to intervene despite the assailants being armed only with hockey sticks and a knife.

The Court found it improbable that two brothers would remain mute spectators during a brutal assault and thereafter fail to seek immediate medical assistance from a nearby clinic. The medical evidence revealing fifteen injuries, including fatal stab wounds, was found inconsistent with PW-1’s assertion that the incident lasted only five minutes. The suspicious overwriting in the MLC regarding the identity of the deceased and accompanying persons further eroded the prosecution case.

The Court also criticised the investigative lapse in not obtaining medical opinion regarding whether the injuries could be caused by the recovered knife with a broken tip, relying on Kartarey v. State of U.P. and Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. The cumulative effect of these infirmities led the Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in reaffirming that sole eye-witness testimony must pass the test of natural human conduct and consistency with medical and circumstantial evidence. Where such testimony appears inherently improbable and lacks corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that investigative lapses, though ordinarily not fatal, assume significance when the prosecution case itself is doubtful. The duty of the prosecution to place weapons before medical experts was emphasised as essential to fair adjudication.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must scrutinise conduct of eye-witnesses against normal human behaviour.
ii. Medical opinion must be sought on the compatibility of injuries with alleged weapons.
iii. Sole testimony of related witnesses requires cautious evaluation and corroboration when doubtful.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred
i. Kartarey v. State of U.P., [1976] 2 SCR 199
ii. Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P., (1976) 4 SCC 355
iii. Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1976) 4 SCC 343

b) Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860
ii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
iii. Arms Act, 1959