Conviction based on sole eyewitness testimony is sustainable if deposition is credible and medically corroborated.

The appellants, Chanda Kharia and Dukhan Kharia, were convicted by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, for the murder of Dilbodh Singh under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

On January 20, 1986, the informant (P.W.-1) and his father (the deceased) were walking to a court hearing regarding a land dispute with the appellants' father.

Near Marda River, the informant stopped to defecate while his father walked ahead toward Darka Patra forest.

The informant heard his father’s cries and witnessed the appellants assaulting him with a khukhri and a lathi.

The body was later found dragged into a ditch with multiple injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellants on January 15, 1998, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The appellants challenged this, citing contradictions in testimony and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the doctor.

1. Whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness (P.W.-1) when there are minor contradictions between his initial statement and court testimony.

2. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the medical officer is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The court applied Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reinforcing that the quantity of witnesses is immaterial compared to the quality of evidence.

Precedents including Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B. and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra were cited to establish that conviction can rest on a solitary reliable witness.

Regarding procedural omissions, the court relied on Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar to hold that non-examination of an I.O. is not fatal unless prejudice is proved.

The court relied on Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal regarding Section 294 of the CrPC, which allows a post-mortem report to be read as substantive evidence if its genuineness is not disputed by the defense.

The Court found P.W.-1 to be a "trustworthy and reliable" witness whose testimony had a "ring of truth".

It dismissed the alleged contradictions in P.W.-1’s testimony—regarding whether he saw the assault after following his father or upon hearing cries—as minor discrepancies natural to a witness recalling a traumatic event after several years.

The Court noted that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 corroborated the immediate aftermath (the res gestae and the location of the body).

Furthermore, the medical evidence (Ext.-4) showing five incised wounds and one bruise perfectly matched the informant’s account of weapons used (khukhri and lathi).

The non-examination of the I.O. was deemed non-prejudicial as the place of occurrence was independently proved through the inquest report and oral testimony.

The non-examination of the doctor was excused because the defense had not objected to the post-mortem report being marked as an exhibit, thereby admitting its genuineness under Section 294 CrPC.

It affirmed the conviction and life sentence, dismissing the appeal.

The Court cancelled the appellants' bail bonds and directed them to surrender before the trial court to serve the remainder of their sentence.