Conviction based on solitary interested witness testimony unsustainable without independent corroboration and sterling reliability.

The prosecution alleged that on the night of 31.03.1997, the appellants murdered Mahavir Yadav while he was outside his house to ease himself.

According to the fardbayan of the informant (PW 3), the appellants used a sword, garasa (pole-axe), and lathis to decapitate the deceased due to a long-standing land dispute.

The Trial Court convicted Rajendra @ Karu Yadav and Indradeo Yadav under Section 302 IPC, and others under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

During trial, the informant (PW 3) and his brother (PW 4) turned hostile, leaving the conviction dependent on the sole testimony of the deceased's son, Churaman Yadav (PW 2).

1. Whether the conviction can be sustained based on the uncorroborated, solitary testimony of an interested witness (PW 2) when other eyewitnesses have turned hostile.

2. Whether the material improvements and contradictions in the ocular evidence vis-à-vis the medical evidence and initial fardbayan render the prosecution case unreliable.

3. Whether the failure to examine independent witnesses (Chowkidar, co-villagers) and the police officer who recorded the fardbayan constitutes a fatal flaw.

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that the quality, not quantity, of evidence matters.

The court invoked the principle that while a conviction can rest on a solitary witness, such testimony must be of "sterling quality" and "wholly reliable" [Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras].

It further applied the doctrine that "enmity is a double-edged weapon," which can provide motive but also suggests false implication, requiring heightened scrutiny of interested witnesses [State of MP v. Ratan Singh].

The High Court found the testimony of the solitary witness (PW 2) significantly flawed. While the fardbayan claimed Indradeo Yadav struck the neck, PW 2 testified in court that the blow was to the shoulder—an improvement made only after the post-mortem report revealed a shoulder injury.

The Court noted that despite PW 2 being just steps away in a "full moonlit night," his failure to disclose the assailants’ names to the village Chowkidar at 3 AM or to co-villagers at 7 AM was contrary to natural human conduct.

The hostility of PW 3 (informant) and PW 4 (grandson), combined with the prosecution's failure to examine the Chowkidar and the officer who recorded the fardbayan, created serious gaps in the narrative.

The Court observed that the admitted land dispute between relatives made false implication a distinct possibility, and the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration to bridge these doubts.

The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction dated 30.03.1999 was set aside. The appellants were acquitted under the benefit of doubt, their bail bonds were cancelled, and they were discharged from their sureties.