A conviction cannot rest on doubtful sole-eyewitness identification lacking material corroboration.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a shooting in a minibus that killed two passengers and injured others.

The prosecution’s case rested principally on informant Aruna Devi (P.W. 6), who claimed to have witnessed the shooting and identified the appellant.

The injured eyewitnesses did not identify the assailants; P.W. 4 stated that the accused in the dock were not the shooters and that Aruna Devi was not on the bus.

The defence relied on jail visitor records and testimony placing Aruna Devi at Begusarai Jail on the date of the occurrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

1. Whether P.W. 6’s solitary testimony was sufficiently reliable to prove the appellant’s identity and participation beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the evidence and investigation, considered cumulatively, established the appellant’s guilt under the charged provisions.

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require any particular number of witnesses; a conviction may rest on one witness, but the quality and reliability of that testimony govern whether it is sufficient.

Under Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, a wholly reliable witness may support a conviction without corroboration, while a witness who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable ordinarily requires corroboration as a matter of prudence.

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) describes a “sterling witness” as one whose account is consistent, unassailable, and withstands cross-examination.

The court also applied the principle that Section 34 IPC cannot replace proof of an accused’s participation in the criminal act.

The charges arose under Sections 302 and 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The court found that the core reliability of P.W. 6 was undermined by inconsistencies about where her first statement was recorded and how she travelled to Begusarai after the shooting, and by the absence of investigative support for her account.

Her claimed presence on the bus was directly contradicted by injured witness P.W. 4, while the other injured witness and the tea-stall witnesses did not identify the appellant.

The jail register and defence testimony supported the alternative account that Aruna Devi was at the jail.

Although the evidence established that a shooting occurred, it did not reliably establish the appellant’s identity or participation; the defective investigation did not fill that gap.

The court therefore treated P.W. 6 as neither wholly reliable nor independently corroborated on the crucial issue of identity.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

As the appellant had been on bail, the court discharged his bail bond.