Testimony of a single reliable eyewitness and corroborative conduct of the accused sustain conviction for murder.

The deceased, Trineshkumar, was assaulted with deadly weapons (repiece patti and Longs) on 09.12.2009 by Accused Nos. 2 to 6, allegedly at the instigation of Accused No. 1.

The motive was prior animosity involving a bike race dispute and a previous assault on the deceased's mother on 02.12.2009.

The injured succumbed to his injuries on 11.12.2009.

The Trial Court (II Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Hassan) convicted all six accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 504, 506, and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC.

The appellants challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of a 20-day delay in recording the statement of the sole eyewitness (PW-55) and the fact that most other witnesses turned hostile.

Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of a single eyewitness (PW-55) whose statement was recorded after a 20-day delay.

Whether the circumstantial evidence and official testimony regarding the recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were sufficient to sustain the conviction despite independent panch witnesses turning hostile.

Whether the conviction under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was sustainable in the absence of specific charges and evidence.

The court applied Section 302 IPC for murder and Section 149 IPC for common object.

It relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of discovery of facts based on information from the accused.

Regarding witnesses, the court applied the principle that "plurality of witnesses is not required" if a single witness is reliable (*Bhadri v. State of Rajasthan*).

It further held that the testimony of police officials is not inherently untrustworthy and can form the basis of conviction if found credible (*State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil*).

The court also noted that unexplained delay in recording statements is fatal, but explained delay is not (*Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra*).

The High Court found the death to be homicidal based on 13 external injuries noted in the PM report (Ex.P48).

Regarding PW-55 (eyewitness), the 20-day delay in recording his statement was deemed non-fatal because the Investigating Officer provided a reasonable explanation—he was unaware of PW-55’s presence until later in the investigation.

Furthermore, PW-55’s presence was corroborated by the fact that Accused No. 6’s own prior complaint (Ex.P37) mentioned the deceased was accompanied by others during a confrontation the previous night.

The court accepted the recovery of weapons (M.O.10, M.O.11) under Section 27 because the police testimony (PW-56) was consistent and the "disclosure" led to the actual recovery of a weapon from a river by Accused No. 5.

However, the court found the conviction under Sections 504 and 506 IPC lacked evidentiary support, as no witness testified to specific insults or life threats made during the final assault.

It set aside the conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC due to lack of evidence and specific charges.

However, it confirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentences for Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other riot-related charges, finding the evidence of the sole eyewitness (PW-55) and the official recovery reports reliable.

The accused were directed to surrender by 13.03.2026.