A reliable sole eyewitness can sustain murder conviction despite non-recovery of weapon and absent motive.

On 20 June 2022, Ratan Barman sustained a stab injury to the neck on Mahindra Nagar Road, Tamulpur, and died at the spot.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Sarala Mandal, stabbed him with a knife following an altercation and then fled on her bicycle.

An FIR was lodged on 21 June 2022, resulting in registration of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 124/2022 under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including PW-3, projected as the eyewitness, and the appellant examined herself as DW-1.

The Sessions Court, Baksa, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant inflicted the fatal stab injury on the deceased, principally on the basis of PW-3’s eyewitness testimony and the surrounding evidence?

Whether the absence of a proved motive, inconsistencies in the evidence, and the alleged non-recovery or doubtful recovery of the weapon undermined the prosecution case?

Whether the appellant’s plea that the injury was caused while exercising the right of private defence against an attempted rape and assault was sufficient to avoid liability under Section 302 IPC?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, governing punishment for murder, and considered the appellant’s plea of private defence under the general principles governing private defence.

It held that an accused relying on a specific defence need not establish it beyond reasonable doubt, but must show it on a preponderance of probabilities; however, the explanation must be plausible.

The Court reiterated that motive is of limited significance where reliable direct evidence exists, particularly eyewitness testimony.

It further held that conviction may rest on the testimony of a single eyewitness if that witness is reliable and passes the test of credibility.

Non-recovery of the weapon is not fatal where consistent ocular and medical evidence independently establishes the prosecution case.

The Court also applied the principle that an FIR is not required to contain an exhaustive account of every fact subsequently established during investigation.

The medical evidence established that the deceased died from a fatal stab wound to the neck.

PW-3 gave a direct account that, after an altercation, the appellant called the deceased towards her, drew a knife from inside her blouse, stabbed him in the neck, and fled.

Although PW-3 accepted that PWs-6 to 9 had not witnessed the stabbing, their evidence corroborated her presence at the scene: they heard her raising an alarm, saw the deceased bleeding on the roadside, and saw the appellant leaving on her bicycle.

The Court found that PW-3’s presence was thereby independently established, and that her testimony was not materially shaken.

The Court treated the contradiction concerning PW-6’s alleged statement that PW-3 shouted “Sarala killed Ratan Barman” as insufficient to discredit the prosecution case, because the core evidence of PW-3, supported by PWs-7 to 9 and the medical evidence, remained intact.

The absence of motive did not assist the appellant because the case rested on direct ocular evidence.

Likewise, the issue of weapon recovery was not decisive, particularly as the medical and eyewitness evidence consistently established the manner of death.

The plea of private defence was rejected.

The appellant’s accounts were inconsistent: her testimony as DW-1 differed from the version attributed to her under Section 161 CrPC.

The Court also considered it implausible that an attempted rape would occur on a road used by villagers between approximately 5:00 and 6:30 p.m., before darkness had set in.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish a plausible private-defence explanation, while the prosecution proved the intentional stabbing of a vital part of the body beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant’s pleas regarding absence of motive, evidentiary contradictions, FIR omissions, weapon recovery, and private defence were rejected.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000, with two months’ simple imprisonment in default, were affirmed.

The criminal appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.