Sole Eyewitness Testimony Lacking Material Corroboration and Natural Conduct Cannot Sustain a Conviction for Murder

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Junaid on 24.03.2017

The prosecution alleged that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a meat-cutting knife in broad daylight after a chase

The case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-21 (the deceased’s uncle), who claimed to be an eyewitness

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, hostile public witnesses, and procedural lapses in the recovery of the weapon

1. Whether the solitary testimony of PW-21 is sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant

3. Whether the circumstantial evidence and "last seen" theory, as presented through PW-6 and PW-7, corroborate the charge of murder

The Court applied Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 300 (Definition of murder) of the IPC

It relied on the evidentiary principle that while a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, such testimony must be "wholly reliable" and of "stellar quality," as established in *State of Rajasthan v. Bhola Singh*

Furthermore, it applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of recoveries made pursuant to a disclosure statement

and Section 65-B concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence (CCTV footage)

The High Court found the testimony of PW-21 unreliable due to "unnatural conduct"; instead of aiding his bleeding nephew, he allegedly ran to a relative's house, a claim contradicted by other family members (PW-9, PW-10, PW-12) who stated PW-10 provided the first information

The Court noted that public witnesses (PW-5, PW-1) turned hostile, and "last seen" witnesses (PW-6, PW-7) testified that the appellant and deceased were friendly just prior to the incident, negating a motive for sudden violence

The recovery of the knife was deemed doubtful because it was found in an open public shop hours after the incident, yet the Investigating Officer failed to find it during the initial spot visit

Additionally, the lack of a Section 65-B certificate rendered the CCTV evidence inadmissible, and the absence of fingerprints on the weapon further weakened the nexus between the appellant and the crime

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's orders dated 30.10.2023 and 21.03.2024, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and ordered his immediate release

The appeal was allowed