Maternal testimony corroborated by medical evidence prevails over hostile witnesses to sustain murder conviction.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his two-year-old stepson, Abhimanyu.

On October 28, 2015, the informant (PW-1), who is the appellant's wife and the deceased's mother, discovered the appellant beating the child in their rented room.

The child died on the spot from neck injuries.

A written report was lodged within 75 minutes of the incident.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses; however, four witnesses (the landlord’s family and the scribe of the report) turned hostile during the trial.

The trial court (FTC-II, Gorakhpur) sentenced the appellant to rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of witness hostility, a dictated FIR, and lack of independent evidence.

1. Whether the conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole ocular witness (the mother) when all other material fact witnesses have turned hostile.

2. Whether minor contradictions in the mother's testimony and the scribe's allegation that the FIR was dictated by the police vitiate the prosecution's case.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning the punishment for murder.

The principle that "related" does not mean "interested," as established in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, holding that a natural witness (like a wife/mother) is unlikely to screen the real culprit to falsely implicate a loved one.

The doctrine from Shyam Sunder v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding minor contradictions, stating that variations in narration over time do not militate against trustworthiness unless they are abnormal.

The principle from Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, affirming that the evidence of a solitary credible witness is sufficient for conviction if found cogent.

The Court_observed that PW-1 was the most natural witness, as the incident occurred in the privacy of the couple’s rented room.

The Court dismissed the hostility of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5, noting that as members of the landlord's family or fellow tenants, they likely turned hostile to avoid involvement or to aid the appellant, but their testimony still confirmed the appellant’s presence at the scene.

Regarding the "dictated" FIR alleged by the scribe (PW-5), the Court found this to be a post-trial attempt to secure the appellant's acquittal, noting that the promptness of the FIR (filed within 1.15 hours) precluded deliberation.

The medical evidence (PW-7) corroborated PW-1’s account, as the fractured hyoid bone and death by asphyxia matched the allegation of manual strangulation and physical assault.

The Court underscored the mother's demeanor—becoming emotional and weeping in court—as a marker of her truthfulness.

The Court held that minor discrepancies and the hostility of secondary witnesses do not overshadow consistent ocular and medical evidence.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated May 27, 2022, upholding the sentence of rigorous life imprisonment.