Sole Eyewitness Testimony Inspiring Confidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction for Murder Under Section 302 IPC

On August 1, 2012, at approximately 6:30 A.M., the deceased, Janaki Basumatary, was intercepted by the appellant, Prava Rani Basumatary, while walking toward a field near Bhakatpara Muga Farm

An eyewitness (PW-2) observed the appellant inflicting dao (machete) blows on the deceased's neck and body

The appellant subsequently surrendered at Boko Police Station and disclosed the location of the murder weapon, which was recovered from a bamboo thicket at her father-in-law’s residence

The Sessions Judge, Kamrup, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of alleged contradictions in evidence

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of Janaki Basumatary

2. Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW-2) is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

It relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that no particular number of witnesses is required for the proof of any fact, emphasizing the quality over quantity of evidence

The court also applied Section 145 of the Evidence Act regarding the contradiction of witnesses and the principles of direct evidence under Section 60

Precedent from Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar was cited to affirm that conviction can be based on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness

The High Court found the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW-2) to be highly reliable, noting that he observed the attack at close range and immediately reported it to neighbors (PW-4)

This oral testimony was corroborated by medical evidence from PW-7, whose post-mortem report detailed multiple "chop wounds" and a severed finger consistent with a heavy sharp-cutting weapon

The court highlighted the successful recovery of the weapon of offence (Material Ext. A) based on the appellant’s disclosure, which connects the accused to the crime

Crucially, the defense failed to elicit any material contradictions during cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act that would impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses

The court determined that the chain of evidence—eyewitness account, immediate conduct/hue and cry, recovery of the weapon, and medical findings—conclusively established homicidal intent and act

The court affirmed that the testimony of PW-2 was clinching and corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and medical reports

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld, and the sentence of life imprisonment was maintained