Conviction for Attempted Murder Sustained on Solitary Reliable Testimony of Injured Victim and Corroborative Medical Evidence

On May 19, 1982, the appellant, Gajendra, allegedly entered the house of Km. Rekha (P.W.1) while she was alone and cleaning pulses.

Armed with a knife, the appellant inflicted ten incised wounds on her body, including her chest, face, and limbs.

Two neighbors (P.W.2 and P.W.3) arrived, and the appellant fled.

The victim was treated at District Hospital, Bijnor, where the medical officer (P.W.4) opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The trial court (IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor) convicted the appellant under Sections 452 and 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to two and five years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

The appellant challenged this on grounds of lack of independent witnesses and failure to prove motive.

1. Whether the testimony of a solitary injured witness (P.W.1) is sufficient for conviction when independent witnesses have turned hostile.

2. Whether the act of inflicting ten incised wounds with a knife establishes the requisite intention or knowledge for an offense under Section 307 IPC.

3. Whether the failure to establish a clear and continuous motive is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Court applied Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It relied on the settled legal principle that a conviction can be founded on the testimony of a single "wholly reliable" witness.

Furthermore, it emphasized that under Section 307 IPC, the focus is on the intention or knowledge of the accused—gathered from the nature of the weapon, part of the body targeted, and severity of the assault—rather than the actual resulting injury.

Regarding motive, the court noted that non-proof of motive is not fatal where direct eyewitness testimony is credible and corroborated.

The High Court found P.W.1 to be a "wholly reliable" injured witness whose testimony carried an inherent guarantee of truthfulness.

The Court observed that her account was medically corroborated by P.W.4 regarding the ten incised wounds and by the admissions of a hostile witness (P.W.3) regarding the appellant’s presence at the scene.

The Court reasoned that the sheer number of blows (ten), the targeting of vital areas like the chest and face, and the defensive wounds on the victim’s hands clearly demonstrated a premeditated intention to cause death.

While the motive relating to a right-of-way dispute was weak, the Court held it could not outweigh the clear direct evidence provided by the victim.

The Court also highlighted that the entry into the home while the victim was alone satisfied the ingredients of Section 452 IPC.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and two years under Section 452 IPC.

The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.