Credible eyewitness testimony suffices for murder conviction despite ballistic discrepancies or non-recovery of the weapon.

On May 4, 2013, the deceased (Faruk Ibrahim Pata) and the complainant (PW-25) traveled to the outskirts of Veraval village to recover money from the appellant (Accused No. 1).

Upon meeting on a road, the appellant fired a shot from an unlicensed country-made single-barrel gun, hitting the deceased in the abdomen.

Accused No. 2 allegedly attempted an assault with a stick before both accused fled the scene.

A witness grazing cattle nearby (PW-19) heard the shot and assisted the complainant in transporting the deceased, who was declared dead by an ambulance doctor.

The Sessions Court, Jamnagar, convicted the appellant on October 6, 2022, for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and for possession of an unlicensed firearm under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act.

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing a lack of independent witnesses and alleged scientific inconsistencies.

1. Whether the conviction for murder can be sustained based primarily on the testimony of a sole eyewitness who was a friend of the deceased.

2. Whether the scientific and ballistic evidence sufficiently corroborates the ocular testimony to link the appellant and the recovered firearm to the crime.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the charges under the Arms Act in the absence of a valid license or explanation for possession by the appellant.

Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act regarding the possession of prohibited firearms.

The principle that the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if found natural, consistent, and reliable.

Precedent in Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, which established that non-recovery of a weapon is not fatal if direct reliable ocular evidence exists.

Principle from Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, holding that minor contradictions or omissions in testimony do not discredit a truthful witness.

The court found the testimony of the complainant (PW-25) natural and trustworthy, noting he provided a consistent account of the event from the initial meeting at a pan shop to the firing of the fatal shot.

This ocular evidence was reinforced by "res gestae" corroboration, as the complainant immediately narrated the incident to the deceased’s relatives (PW-15, 18, 20, 21) and the cattle grazer (PW-19) without material alterations.

Ballistic evidence provided by the Scientific Officer (PW-23) confirmed that the seized gun was in working condition, showed residues of recent firing, and was compatible with the pellets found at the scene and the holes in the deceased's clothing.

FSL serology reports (PW-24) matched the 'O' group blood found at the crime scene and on the deceased’s clothes to the deceased's blood sample, confirming the location and nature of the struggle.

The court reasoned that the lack of a firearm license and the appellant's failure to explain the possession of the weapon in his Section 313 statement solidified the charges under the Arms Act.

The High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence passed by the Sessions Court, Jamnagar. The appeal was dismissed, and the findings under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act were confirmed.