A conviction cannot rest on materially contradictory, uncorroborated testimony from a sole eyewitness.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the strangulation death of his three-year-old nephew, whose body was found in a cowshed.

The prosecution case rested principally on the child’s mother, PW-8, as the alleged eyewitness.

The trial court accepted her testimony and convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine.

On appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence, including PW-8’s testimony and the father’s evidence.

Whether PW-8’s testimony, as the alleged sole eyewitness, was sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC

Whether the prosecution evidence, considered as a whole, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Section 302 IPC criminalises murder.

Under the principle stated in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282, a conviction may rest on a sole eyewitness’s testimony if that witness is wholly reliable; where the witness is not wholly reliable, material corroboration is generally required, while testimony of a wholly unreliable witness is discarded.

The prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court found material inconsistencies in PW-8’s evidence.

Although she initially alleged that the appellant strangled the child and that the informant and his wife restrained her, she later denied that those two accused were present or had restrained her.

Her accounts also differed concerning her condition after the incident and her search for the child.

No other witness placed the appellant at the scene or corroborated PW-8’s account; the father was absent during the occurrence and his evidence was also inconsistent.

The seizure witnesses further stated that their signatures had been obtained on blank forms.

Applying Anil Phukan, the Court held that the uncorroborated and materially inconsistent testimony of PW-8 could not safely support the conviction.

It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitted the appellant, and directed that his bail bond be discharged.