Testimony of injured eyewitness corroborated by medical evidence and prompt FIR warrants conviction despite non-recovery of weapon.

The appellant, Chhail Bihari, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC for the murder of Rajesh (alias Mantey) and for causing firearm injuries to Smt. Shyam Pyari.

On the night of 7/8.08.1985, the appellant and two associates entered the informant Ayodhya Prasad’s house. The appellant shot Shyam Pyari in the thigh and struck her with a gun butt, then fatally shot Rajesh in the chest as he lay on a cot.

The informant witnessed the approach from concealment and was later briefed on the internal details by his injured daughter.

The motive was attributed to prior enmity, as the informant had previously testified against the appellant in an Arms Act case.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed/ante-dated FIR, non-recovery of the weapon, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence.

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) was ante-dated and lodged after consultation, thereby vitiating the prosecution case.

2. Whether the testimony of a single injured eyewitness (PW-3) is sufficient for conviction despite minor medical discrepancies and non-recovery of the weapon.

3. Whether the non-examination of the treating doctor from the specialty hospital (Bailey Hospital) is fatal to the prosecution.

The Court applied Sections 302 (Murder) and 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the principle from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras that the court can convict on the testimony of a single reliable witness.

Regarding injured witnesses, it applied the doctrine that such testimony carries special weight because the witness’s presence is certain and they are unlikely to subserve the real culprit (Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.).

Per State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, the non-examination of a treating doctor is not fatal if the injury report is otherwise proved and the ocular evidence is inspiring.

The Court found the FIR was prompt (lodged at 12:45 a.m. for a 10:00 p.m. incident), leaving no room for fabrication.

It rejected the "ante-timing" plea, noting the natural sequence from the incident to medical examination.

The Court emphasized that PW-3, as an injured witness, was "wholly reliable"; her presence at the scene was established by her gun-shot wounds, and her testimony was corroborated by the recovery of six empty cartridges at the site.

Medical discrepancies regarding "blackening or tattooing" were dismissed as minor variances that do not override categorical ocular evidence.

The Court held that the non-recovery of the firearm was immaterial given the strong direct evidence.

Finally, it ruled that the non-examination of the Bailey Hospital doctor did not cause prejudice, as the initial injury report was duly proved by the examining Medical Officer (PW-2).

The Court affirmed that the testimony of a single injured eyewitness, if reliable, is sufficient for conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC were affirmed, and the appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.