A credible sole eyewitness can sustain conviction despite relationship and minor evidentiary discrepancies.

On 4 May 2004 at approximately 10:00 p.m., Sanjay was allegedly attacked near the old market at Kharkhoda by the appellant, Surinder Kumar, following a monetary dispute between them two days earlier. Rajesh, the deceased’s cousin, claimed to have witnessed the appellant inflicting multiple blows with an ice-breaking sua/knife on Sanjay’s chest, back and head. Sanjay died at the spot.

Rajesh thereafter informed his family and, while proceeding towards the police station, encountered a police patrol and gave his statement, which formed the basis of the FIR at approximately 12:05 a.m. on 5 May 2004.

The investigating officer inspected the scene, collected bloodstained earth and footwear, conducted inquest proceedings, and arranged the post-mortem examination. On 6 May 2004, the appellant allegedly made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which the weapon was recovered in the presence of attesting witnesses.

The post-mortem examination found ten injuries, including sharp punctured and pointed wounds, and attributed death to injuries to vital structures including the left lung and heart.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 3,000 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained primarily on the testimony of Rajesh, the deceased’s related and sole eyewitness, despite the alleged inconsistencies in his conduct and testimony?

2. Whether the ocular account was inconsistent with the medical evidence and the recovered weapon so as to create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

3. Whether the alleged delay in registration of the FIR and receipt of the special report by the Illaqa Magistrate rendered the prosecution version doubtful or suggested that the FIR was ante-timed?

4. Whether the disclosure statement and recovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance were reliable and legally capable of corroborating the prosecution case?

5. Whether the contradictions, omissions and the deceased’s alleged criminal antecedents were sufficient to discredit the prosecution case and warrant acquittal?

The court applied Section 302 IPC concerning the offence of murder.

It held that a conviction may legally rest on the testimony of a single witness if that testimony is natural, cogent, credible and trustworthy; the law requires quality, not quantity, of evidence.

Relying on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, and Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 (12) SCC 558, the court reiterated that a related witness is not to be discarded merely because of the relationship, and that minor contradictions or omissions do not destroy an otherwise reliable eyewitness account.

The court also referred to Balku Oram v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 852, for the principle that credible and consistent sole eyewitness testimony, supported by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction.

It further applied the rule that delay in FIR registration is material primarily when unexplained, and that the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement and consequential recovery depends upon proof of the statement, recovery and linkage of the recovered weapon with the offence.

The court found Rajesh’s presence at the scene natural because he had been accompanying Sanjay and was only 15–20 feet behind him when the attack occurred.

His failure to immediately go to the police station or hospital was held insufficient to discredit him, as the attack was sudden, Sanjay had died almost instantaneously, and Rajesh’s subsequent conduct of seeking assistance from his family was considered a plausible human reaction.

The court treated Rajesh’s relationship with the deceased as a circumstance requiring scrutiny, not automatic rejection, and concluded that his testimony remained consistent on the material particulars and withstood cross-examination.

The alleged discrepancy between the description of the weapon as a sua and the recovered weapon was rejected because the doctor opined that the injuries could have been caused by the recovered weapon, thereby connecting the ocular and medical evidence.

The disclosure statement and recovery were accepted on the basis of the evidence of the investigating officer and attesting witnesses.

The court also held that the FIR was promptly recorded shortly after midnight and that the time taken to deliver the special report was satisfactorily explained by the distance and mode of travel of the police official.

Minor discrepancies regarding distances, occupation and the earlier quarrel did not affect the core prosecution case, while the deceased’s alleged involvement in another criminal case did not establish a plausible alternative theory of false implication or blind murder.

The alleged inconsistencies, delay, weapon-description discrepancy and the deceased’s criminal antecedents did not create reasonable doubt.

The conviction of Surinder Kumar under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with fine were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

As the appellant was on bail, the court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to initiate proceedings for his re-arrest so that he could undergo the remaining sentence.