A reliable sole eyewitness can sustain conviction despite non-material contradictions and unproved weapon recovery.

The prosecution alleged that on 7 December 2003 at about 7:00 p.m., Sathyavathy unlawfully entered the residence of Kamalakshi, aged 70, and repeatedly stabbed her with a knife.

Kamalakshi sustained serious injuries to her chest and abdomen and died at 2:45 a.m. on 17 December 2003.

The post-mortem evidence attributed the death to the chest and abdominal injuries, which were independently sufficient to cause death and could have been caused by the knife marked as MO3.

The trial court, which had originally been presented with charges under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), convicted the accused under Sections 451 and 304 Part II IPC.

It imposed three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II and six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 451, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The accused challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC by entering the residence of the deceased with the requisite criminal intent.

Whether the accused caused the fatal injuries to Kamalakshi with the knowledge contemplated under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court required interference in appeal.

The Court applied Section 451 IPC, which penalises house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment; and Section 304 Part II IPC, which applies where death is caused by an act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Section 374(2) CrPC governed the maintainability of the appeal against conviction.

The Court also considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 concerning the admissibility of information leading to discovery of a concealed fact, but held that proof of recovery was not essential where the credible testimony of an eyewitness independently established the use of the weapon.

The settled evidentiary principle applied was that the reliable and unimpeached testimony of a solitary eyewitness can, by itself, sustain a conviction, and minor omissions, memory lapses, or immaterial contradictions do not discredit otherwise trustworthy evidence.

The Court found PW2 to be a direct eyewitness who clearly identified the accused as the person who repeatedly stabbed Kamalakshi and then left the scene carrying the knife.

Her inability to recall certain details was attributed to her recent Caesarean surgery and did not affect the core account of the occurrence.

The contradictions marked during PW1’s cross-examination were held to be immaterial, particularly because medical evidence established that Kamalakshi was conscious shortly after the incident.

PW6’s evidence regarding the accused’s movements before and after the incident, together with the evidence concerning the boundary dispute, provided corroborative circumstances.

Although the Sessions Court had disbelieved the Section 27 recovery of MO3 from an open place, the High Court held that PW2’s identification of the knife and the medical evidence linking the injuries to such a weapon were sufficient to establish the prosecution case.

The repeated stabbing of the deceased in the chest and abdomen, resulting in fatal injuries, established the knowledge required for Section 304 Part II IPC, while the accused’s entry into the house and commission of the assault supported the conviction under Section 451 IPC.

It held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable, the medical evidence corroborated the occurrence, and the alleged deficiencies concerning contradictions and recovery did not create reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentences—three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II and six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 451 IPC, to run concurrently—were affirmed.

The suspension of sentence and bail were cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the Sessions Court forthwith, failing which the Sessions Court was directed to execute the sentence.