Solitary Testimony of Interested Witness Lacking Sterling Quality and Independent Corroboration Insufficient for Murder Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on 19.10.1995, the informant (PW-7) found the accused's cattle grazing in his field. Upon protesting, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the informant and his brother, Paras Singh (deceased).

It was alleged that the appellant (Dumar Bin) inflicted a fatal spear blow to Paras Singh's abdomen.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, while eight co-accused were acquitted.

The appellant challenged this on the grounds that the informant (PW-7) and all independent witnesses turned hostile, leaving the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the deceased's son (PW-8).

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt given that the informant and independent witnesses turned hostile.

2. Whether the testimony of PW-8 (son of the deceased) qualifies as "sterling witness" evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration.

3. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) caused material prejudice to the defense.

Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder.

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), which defined a "sterling witness" as one of very high quality whose version is unassailable and consistent.

The principle from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras that a court may convict on the testimony of a solitary witness if they are "wholly reliable".

The doctrine of the "presumption of innocence" and the "benefit of doubt" as established in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, asserting that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted.

The Court found that the prosecution case rested entirely on PW-8, as the informant (PW-7) and other eye-witnesses (PW-1, PW-4) turned hostile and failed to identify the assailants.

The Court determined that PW-8 could not be considered a "sterling witness" because his testimony contained material contradictions, particularly regarding his arrival at the scene—stating in cross-examination that he arrived after the assault was complete and did not see the weapon.

The non-examination of the I.O. was found to have caused serious prejudice as it prevented the defense from proving contradictions under Section 161 CrPC and hindered the verification of the place of occurrence.

Since the sole witness was an "interested witness" (the son) and his testimony was not of "sterling quality," the Court held the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt".

The High Court set aside the Judgment of Conviction dated 15.09.2000 and the Order of Sentence dated 16.09.2000; the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC and discharged from his bail bonds.

The Registry was directed to return the Lower Court Records.