Criminal Appeal – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction based on solitary eyewitness – Reliability of sole witness – Contradictory versions – Absence of corroboration – Test Identification Parade – Improper conduct – Recovery evidence doubtful – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal
Held:
Where the prosecution rests its case solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, such evidence must be of sterling quality, wholly reliable, free from contradictions, and inspire complete confidence. If the solitary eyewitness gives divergent versions, lacks corroboration, and the surrounding circumstances create serious doubt regarding recovery and identification, conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. A defective test identification parade and improbable recovery further weaken the prosecution case, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt.
(Paras 10–23)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
I. Nature of Appeal
The appeal was preferred by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 10.05.2018 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2016, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine.
(Para 1)
II. Prosecution Case
The prosecution alleged that at about 04:00 AM on 20.10.2015, the accused attacked the deceased with a soda bottle, causing fatal head injuries. The case was registered on the report of PW.1, the father of the deceased.
(Paras 2–3)
The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14, marked Exs.P1 to P17, and exhibited MOs.1 to 7.
(Para 4)
III. Evidence of the Sole Eyewitness (PW.3)
The prosecution case hinged entirely on PW.3, who claimed to have witnessed the incident while assisting his brother at a pan shop in the early hours of the morning. PW.3 stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with a soda bottle near the pan shop.
(Paras 10–11)
However, critical deficiencies were noticed:
-
PW.3 admitted in cross-examination that he had given two divergent versions before the police and the Magistrate.
-
His narration as to whether the deceased or the accused was on the motorcycle was inconsistent.
-
He admitted that opening the shop at such an early hour was unusual and specific only to that day.
(Paras 11–12)
The Court found PW.3 not to be a wholly reliable witness.
(Para 13)
IV. Absence of Corroboration
Although PW.3 claimed that about 15 persons gathered at the scene and that he complained to a traffic constable, none of these witnesses were examined.
Further, the informant Srikanth (LW.7), who allegedly informed PW.1 about the incident, was also not examined.
(Paras 11, 17)
V. Evidence of Relatives and Other Witnesses
-
PW.1 and PW.2 (father and wife of the deceased) were not eyewitnesses and their evidence was limited to receiving information after the incident.
-
PW.4 and PW.5 spoke only about an earlier altercation and did not support the prosecution regarding the actual occurrence.
(Paras 17–18)
VI. Recovery and Arrest – Doubtful Circumstances
The prosecution relied on alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes and the neck portion of a soda bottle from the accused two weeks after the incident.
The Court found it highly improbable that the accused would still be wearing blood-stained clothes or preserve a broken soda bottle for such a long period.
(Para 19)
Accordingly, no reliance was placed on the recovery evidence.
VII. Test Identification Parade
The Test Identification Parade was conducted belatedly on 21.11.2015. PW.3 admitted that the other participants were not of similar age or appearance.
The witness had not given any prior descriptive particulars of the accused. Hence, the Court held that the identification parade lacked credibility.
(Paras 20–21)
VIII. Legal Position on Solitary Witness
The Court reiterated the settled principle that conviction on the basis of a single eyewitness is permissible only when the testimony is of sterling quality. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising caution where the solitary witness is unreliable or uncorroborated.
(Paras 14–16)
IX. Conclusion on Merits
In view of:
-
Unreliable testimony of PW.3,
-
Absence of corroboration,
-
Improbable recovery, and
-
Defective identification parade,
the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(Paras 21–22)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on a solitary eyewitness is permissible only if the testimony is wholly reliable, consistent, and of sterling quality.
-
Where the sole eyewitness gives contradictory versions and lacks corroboration from independent evidence, such testimony cannot form the basis of conviction.
-
Improbable recovery of incriminating material and defective test identification parade further weaken the prosecution case.
-
In cases of serious doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
FINAL ORDER
The Criminal Appeal was allowed.
The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
(Para 23)
