Credible injured-eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction despite minor inconsistencies.

The prosecution case was that, after the deceased Babu’s family withdrew a marriage proposal between the appellant and Babu’s daughter, Gayathri (PW1), the appellant entered Babu’s house on 3 June 2016 and stabbed Babu and Gayathri with a knife. Babu died while being taken to hospital; Gayathri sustained injuries.

Gayathri and Shanthi (PW2), who were present in the house, identified the appellant as the assailant

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and five years’ imprisonment for attempted murder, with fines.

The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC, challenging the eyewitness evidence, alleged inconsistencies, and recovery of the knife.

1. Whether the eyewitness testimony of PW1, an injured witness, and PW2 was reliable and sufficient to sustain the appellant’s convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC

2. Whether the discrepancies concerning the transport of the victims to hospital and the recovery of the knife undermined the prosecution case

The Court applied Sections 302 and 307 IPC, governing murder and attempted murder, respectively, and considered the appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC.

It applied the principle that an injured witness’s testimony has particular evidentiary value where the witness’s presence at the scene is established, and that minor contradictions do not by themselves discredit otherwise reliable testimony.

The judgment cited no specific precedent.

The Court found PW1’s presence established by her injuries and medical evidence, and considered her account consistent with PW2’s eyewitness testimony.

It held that the discrepancy about who transported Babu to hospital did not undermine the central account of the assault, particularly because PW12 also testified that Babu identified the appellant as the assailant.

Although the evidence concerning the appellant’s statement and recovery of the knife was questioned, the Court held that the prosecution case rested principally on reliable eyewitness evidence; the recovery issue therefore did not warrant interference.

The medical evidence supported the account of fatal stab injuries to Babu and injuries to PW1.

It found no basis to interfere with the convictions or sentences and dismissed the appeal; I.A. No. 3 of 2026 was also dismissed.