Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness Testimony is Sustainable if Evidence is Reliable and Mentally Consistent

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga, for the murder of Lal Jai Kishore Nath Sahdeo, Lal Bal Kishore Nath Sahdeo, and Lal Pramod Nath Sahdeo

According to the prosecution, on March 21, 2015, the deceased and others were at a forest hut when 50-60 armed Maoist extremists, including the appellant, surrounded the hut and abducted four persons

While the informant (PW-7) and his brother (PW-1) hid and witnessed the abduction, Phuddin Thakur (PW-2) was abducted along with the deceased

PW-2 testified that the extremists took them to Sahedapat, where the appellant shot the three victims after verifying their identities, while sparing PW-2

The defense challenged the conviction citing a two-day delay in the FIR, non-examination of a material witness (Chhotu Munda), and the fact that the conviction rested on a solitary eyewitness (PW-2)

1. Whether the sole testimony of an eyewitness (PW-2) is sufficient to prove the charges of murder beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and recording the statement of PW-2 is fatal to the prosecution case

3. Whether the non-examination of the hut owner (Chhotu Munda) and the removal of dead bodies from the place of occurrence before the police arrived vitiate the trial

The court applied Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, establishing that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact

It relied on Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B. (2010) to affirm that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable witness

Regarding the delay in FIR and witness statements, the court applied principles from Sahebrao v. State of Maharashtra (2006) and Bodh Raj v. State of J&K (2002), holding that delay is not fatal if plausibly explained by factors like fear of extremists

It further noted that an inquest report under Section 174 CrPC is limited to finding the apparent cause of death and is not substantive evidence, citing Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar (2001)

The High Court found the testimony of PW-2 to be "wholly reliable" and "unimpeachable," as his presence at the scene was corroborated by PW-1 and PW-7, who saw him being abducted alongside the deceased

The medical evidence from the doctor (PW-5) and the post-mortem reports (Ext. 3 series) confirmed that the deaths were caused by gunshots, aligning perfectly with PW-2’s ocular account

The court dismissed the delay in the FIR (two days) as a natural consequence of the family being in shock and the lingering fear of Maoist militants

The non-examination of Chhotu Munda was deemed immaterial because the Investigating Officer (PW-8) confirmed Munda was working elsewhere at the time

Furthermore, the court held that moving the bodies to the village via truck did not constitute evidence tampering because the cause of death (gunshots) remained consistent across the inquest and medical examinations

It held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s leading role in the unlawful assembly, kidnapping, and murder

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Sections 302 and 364 r/w 149 of the IPC, alongside sentences under the Arms Act and C.L.A. Act

The Lower Court Record was ordered to be returned forthwith