Karnataka HC Acquits Man Of Murder After Sole Eyewitness Denies Seeing Attack; Finds Bamboo-Stick Recovery Unreliable

In brief

The question

Whether PW.2’s testimony, after he resiled from the prosecution account in cross-examination, was sufficiently reliable and corroborated to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC

The court held

The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt

It also directed

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitted the appellant, directed his release unless required in another case, ordered any deposited fine to be refunded, and directed communication of the order to the jail authority

01Facts

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the death of Avinash, who died from head injuries sustained in an alleged assault with a bamboo stick.

pp. 2–3

The prosecution relied principally on PW.2, the complainant and alleged eyewitness. Although PW.2 supported the prosecution in chief-examination, he denied witnessing the assault in cross-examination. The trial court relied on his chief-examination, medical evidence and the alleged recovery of the stick to convict the appellant and sentence him to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

pp. 2–3, 8–9

02Issues

i.Whether PW.2’s testimony, after he resiled from the prosecution account in cross-examination, was sufficiently reliable and corroborated to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC

pp. 11–15

ii.Whether the alleged recovery of the bamboo stick and the other evidence provided independent corroboration connecting the appellant to the assault

pp. 16–18

03Law Applied

The Court considered the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and the principles governing the evidence of a hostile witness. Such testimony is not automatically erased from the record; the court may rely on portions that withstand scrutiny and are consistent with other reliable evidence.

pp. 11–13, 15

However, a conviction cannot safely rest solely on an uncorroborated portion of a hostile witness’s testimony. Medical evidence may establish the nature and cause of death, but does not, without more, identify the assailant

pp. 11–13, 15

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 307

04Reasoning

The medical evidence established that Avinash died from head injuries, but did not independently identify the appellant as the assailant

pp. 10–11, 15

PW.2 disavowed witnessing the assault in cross-examination, while the other witnesses who arrived after the incident did not identify the assailant or corroborate PW.2’s account

pp. 13–15

The alleged recovery of MO.1 was also unreliable: the panch witness turned hostile, and the investigating officer’s account of where the stick was found conflicted with the seizure mahazar

pp. 16–17

The Court therefore found no independent, credible corroboration of PW.2’s chief-examination and held that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt

pp. 15–19