Testimony of a police officer as a sole eye-witness is sufficient for conviction if found credible.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife on 16.09.2017 at Bokpara Tea Estate

The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of PW-5 (an ASI of Police), who witnessed the appellant hacking the victim with a dao (machete)

PW-2 (a Homeguard) corroborated this by testifying he saw the appellant holding a blood-stained dao immediately after hearing a hue and cry

The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds: the lack of independent/private witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public area, the failure to send the weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the absence of a written Section 161 Cr.PC statement for PW-2

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a police officer (PW-5) can form the sole basis for conviction

2. Whether the failure to send the murder weapon for FSL examination is fatal to the prosecution's case

3. Whether the absence of a written statement under Section 161 Cr.PC for a witness vitiates the trial

The court applied Section 302 of the IPC regarding the punishment for murder

It relied on Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State (2012) and Girja Prasad v. State of M.P. (2007) to establish that a police officer’s testimony is reliable and can form the sole basis of conviction if found trustworthy

Regarding the status of a "chance witness," the court cited Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh (2007), holding such evidence admissible if credible

Procedurally, the court applied Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.PC, noting that reducing a witness's statement to writing is directory, not mandatory

Finally, the court integrated Section 357A Cr.PC regarding victim compensation

The court found the testimony of PW-5 to be highly credible, noting that he was on official law and order duty during a "bonus day" at the tea garden, which explained his presence (negating the negative connotation of a "chance witness")

The bench observed no evidence of enmity or motive for PW-5 to falsely implicate the appellant

This eye-witness account was corroborated by PW-2, who apprehended the appellant with the blood-stained weapon, and the medical evidence (PW-3), which confirmed death by heavy sharp-cutting injuries

The court dismissed the FSL argument, ruling that ocular evidence from an eye-witness overrides the procedural lapse of not obtaining a forensic report

Regarding the Section 161 Cr.PC statement, the court clarified that the law allows for oral examination and does not mandate a written record to validate a witness’s testimony in court

The court held that the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible eye-witness testimony

Additionally, the court recommended that the Assam State Legal Services Authority evaluate providing compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC to the appellant’s three deaf and dumb children