Testimony of a child eye-witness, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.

The Appellant was married to the deceased, Suma Devi, for 12 years.

On the night of July 3-4, 2013, the Appellant allegedly murdered his wife by assaulting her with an axe on the head.

The motive was attributed to the Appellant suspecting his wife’s fidelity, a matter previously addressed in village *Panchayats*.

The informant (mother of the deceased) was alerted by her granddaughter, Shital Kumari (P.W.15), who claimed to have witnessed the assault.

The Appellant was apprehended by villagers and handed over to the police.

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Hazaribagh) convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on April 4, 2019, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of interested witnesses, lack of weapon seizure, and a plea of intoxication.

1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the Appellant suffers from any error of law.

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

It examined the "Last Seen" theory and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

The Court further applied the principle that voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense under the IPC to negate criminal intent for murder.

Regarding witness credibility, the Court relied on the doctrine that the testimony of a sole reliable eye-witness, even if a child or a relative, is sufficient for conviction if corroborated by medical evidence.

The Court found that P.W.15 (the minor daughter) was a natural and credible eye-witness who provided a categorical account of the Appellant assaulting the deceased with an axe.

Her testimony remained intact during cross-examination and was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.5, who confirmed the cause of death as a fatal sharp-cut injury to the parietal region.

The Court rejected the defense's argument regarding the non-seizure of the weapon and FSL report, holding that these investigative lapses did not outweigh the consistent ocular evidence.

The Appellant’s presence at the scene was admitted in his own testimony as D.W.1, yet he failed to explain the head injury of his wife, thereby failing the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, the plea of voluntary intoxication was dismissed as a matter of law, as it does not grant a license to commit murder.

The Court answered the issue in the negative, finding no error of law in the trial court's judgment.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.