Conviction Based on Solitary Eyewitness Testimony Impeached by Material Contradictions and Testimonial Inconsistencies Cannot Sustain Legal Scrutiny

The prosecution alleged that on September 2, 1996, the appellant (Mansu Manjhi) and a co-accused (Raghunath Manjhi) assaulted the informant’s mother, Chandmani Manjhian, in a paddy field because they suspected her of being a "witch"

The informant (PW-12) claimed to be an eyewitness who saw the appellant assault the deceased with a weapon, while Raghunath held her

The trial court, on December 20, 1999, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting the co-accused

The appellant challenged this on grounds of material contradictions between witnesses and the defense that he was suffering from "psychotic depression" and was undergoing psychiatric treatment at the time of the incident

1. Whether the informant (PW-12), as the sole eyewitness, is trustworthy and reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the contradictions between the testimony of the informant and his wife (PW-10) are material enough to disbelieve the prosecution's case?

3. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice to the appellant regarding the place of occurrence?

The court applied Section 302 and Section 34 of the IPC regarding murder and common intention

It relied on Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, provided the testimony is of high quality

The court cited Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B. and Kuriya v. State of Rajasthan to establish that while a conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness, such testimony must be "wholly reliable" and inspire confidence

Regarding material contradictions, the court applied principles from Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, holding that discrepancies affecting the "substratum" of the case render testimony unreliable

It also applied the principle of "benefit of doubt" and the "two views" doctrine as established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

The Court found that the informant’s (PW-12) status as a reliable eyewitness was compromised by the testimony of his wife (PW-10). While PW-12 claimed he saw the assault and was chased by the appellant, PW-10 testified that they both rushed to the field after hearing an uproar that the mother-in-law had already been murdered, finding her dead upon arrival

Furthermore, there was a material contradiction regarding the weapon: the informant mentioned a tangi (axe) in the fardbeyan but testified to a "sword" in court

The court noted that eight out of thirteen prosecution witnesses turned hostile

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was deemed fatal as it prevented the defense from cross-examining the officer on the exact place of occurrence and the contradictions in statements

Lastly, the court acknowledged psychiatric evidence (DW-2) showing the appellant was treated for psychotic depression close to the date of occurrence, adding to the overall doubt

It answered both primary issues in the negative, finding the sole eyewitness unreliable due to material contradictions with PW-10 and regarding the weapon used

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of conviction dated December 20, 1999, and the order of sentence dated January 5, 2000, and discharged the appellant from his bail bonds