Conviction Sustained Solely on Credible Testimony of Injured Eyewitness Despite Perfunctory Investigation or Minor Medical Discrepancies

The informant, Pachay Munduiya (PW-1), was returning home on August 26, 2012, when he and his brother Birendra Munduiya (deceased) were restrained by the appellants

The appellants forcibly took them to a secluded pond near Dadima village under the pretext of resolving a spiritual disturbance (Ojha)

At the site, Bakra Mundaiya shot Birendra, and Vibhishan Raidas shot PW-1 in the temple (kanpatti). Both victims were thrown into a pond

PW-1 regained consciousness and sought help from villagers

Birendra died at the scene

The Trial Court convicted nine appellants under Sections 364/34, 302/34, and 307/34 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of independent witnesses, delay in the fardbeyan, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence

1. Whether the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness (PW-1) is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?

2. Whether discrepancies between the number of shots reported by the eyewitness and those found in the post-mortem report vitiate the prosecution case?

3. Whether lapses in investigation, such as non-seizure of blood-stained earth or failure to send weapons for forensic examination, entitle the appellants to an acquittal?

The Court applied Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that the quality of evidence matters over quantity

It relied on State of U.P. v. Naresh (2011) and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) to establish that an injured witness's testimony holds high evidentiary value due to the "built-in guarantee" of their presence at the scene

Regarding contradictions, the Court followed Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana (2011), holding that ocular evidence prevails over medical opinion unless the latter completely rules out the former

For Section 34 IPC (common intention), it applied Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2022), noting that common intention can form moments before the act

The Court found PW-1 to be a "stamped witness" whose presence was guaranteed by his own near-fatal injuries

It held that his inability to name all accused immediately was justified by his critical physical condition at the time, as testified by the IO (PW-8)

Regarding the medical-ocular mismatch (three shots alleged vs. one entry wound found), the Court reasoned that ocular evidence is not rejected for minor discrepancies unless the medical findings make the ocular version "totally improbable"

Here, the medical evidence confirmed death by firearm, matching the essence of the eyewitness account

The Court dismissed the "perfunctory investigation" argument, ruling that the failure to seize blood-stained earth or the weapon does not negate credible ocular testimony

The participation of all appellants in abducting the victims to a secluded spot at night sufficiently proved common intention under Section 34 IPC

The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the reliable testimony of the injured eyewitness, which was sufficiently corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the deceased’s body based on the informant's statement

The bail bonds for the appellants released during the pendency were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender to serve the remainder of their life sentences