A credible related eyewitness can sustain conviction when medical evidence corroborates the account.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the axe murder of his stepbrother and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega

The prosecution case rested principally on the testimony of P.W.-6, the father of both the appellant and the deceased, who said he witnessed the appellant chase and strike the deceased with an axe

The post-mortem examination recorded three sharp-force injuries, including injuries to the head and neck, and attributed death to a sharp-cutting weapon

On appeal, the appellant challenged the witness’s status as an eyewitness and the reliability of identification in the evening, and relied on defence evidence alleging that the informant committed the murder

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained on the testimony of P.W.-6 as the sole eyewitness, despite the challenge to his opportunity to identify the appellant and his credibility.

Whether the medical and other evidence sufficiently corroborated P.W.-6’s account, and whether the defence witnesses’ allegation against the informant created reasonable doubt.

The court considered the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.

It applied the evidentiary principle that a conviction may rest on a sole eyewitness’s testimony where the court finds that witness credible and identifies no material reason to reject the account; the witness’s relationship to the accused and deceased did not, in the circumstances, undermine identification.

The court also treated consistency between the eyewitness account, the medical evidence, and the scene of occurrence as corroborative, and assessed the defence evidence for reliability.

The court found that P.W.-6 had consistently supported his account that he saw the appellant assault the deceased with an axe, and that the defence had elicited nothing material in cross-examination to discredit him.

It considered identification reliable because the witness was the appellant’s father, and noted that the I.O. found the body on the road, consistent with the account of the assault there.

The axe recovered by the I.O. and the sharp-cut injuries recorded at post-mortem corroborated the eyewitness account.

The defence witnesses were found unreliable because they admitted that they had not made statements to the I.O. and had appeared to testify for the first time at trial.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment.

The appellant was in custody; the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be furnished to him and that the trial court record be returned to the trial court.