### Reliability of solitary eye-witness and official testimony regarding recovery sufficient for murder conviction despite hostile panch witnesses.

The victim, Trineshkumar, was murdered on 09.12.2009 in Holenarasipura.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 (A1) had a prior dispute with the victim’s mother (02.12.2009), and Accused No. 6 (A6) harbored animosity over a cancelled bike race.

On the day of the incident, the accused formed an unlawful assembly; A2 assaulted the victim with a "repiece patti" (wooden batten) while A3–A6 used "Longs" (machetes) at A1’s instigation.

The victim died on 11.12.2009.

The Trial Court convicted all six appellants under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 504, 506, and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC.

The appellants challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of a 20-day delay in recording the sole eyewitness's (PW55) statement and the hostility of other spot witnesses.

Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the accused for murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness (PW55) whose statement was recorded after a 20-day delay.

Whether the charges and convictions under Sections 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were legally sustainable in the absence of specific evidence or framed charges.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC.

It relied on the principle that conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary reliable witness if the court is satisfied with its truthfulness, as held in *Bhadri v. State of Rajasthan*.

Regarding the delay in recording statements, it followed *Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra*, holding that delay is not fatal if reasonably explained.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that recoveries made via disclosure statements are admissible even if independent panch witnesses turn hostile, provided the official (police) testimony is trustworthy, citing *State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil*.

The Court found the death to be homicidal based on 13 external injuries detailed in the PM report (Ex.P48).

Although several eyewitnesses turned hostile, the Court accepted PW55’s testimony, noting that the 20-day delay in his statement was sufficiently explained by his fear and the Investigator’s initial lack of knowledge regarding his presence.

PW55’s account was corroborated by the conduct of the driver (PW5), who fled the scene in terror, and the owner of the car (PW9), who confirmed the driver was scared and had not eaten for days.

Furthermore, Accused No. 6’s own prior complaint (Ex.P37) established the presence of the victim and his companions (including PW55) at the scene shortly before the crime, proving proximity.

The Court upheld the recovery of the murder weapon (iron long) at the instance of A5 under Section 27, choosing to rely on the consistent testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW56) despite the hostility of independent witnesses.

However, the Court noted that no specific charges were framed for Section 504, and no evidence supported the ingredients of "insult" or "intimidation" during the fatal assault.

It set aside the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC due to lack of evidence and procedural errors in framing charges.

However, it confirmed the conviction and life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, and 114 r/w 149 of the IPC.

The accused were ordered to surrender by 13.03.2026 to serve their remaining sentence.