Uncorroborated testimony of a solitary witness with unexplained delay in disclosure cannot sustain a murder conviction.

The Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, for the murder of Budhram Mahli and his wife Kunti, based on an incident allegedly occurring on 23.08.2011

The informant, Soma Mahli (P.W. 1), claimed to have seen the Appellants dragging the victims from their home and assaulting them under a tree on suspicion of practicing witchcraft

He further claimed they were taken toward hillocks; their decomposed bodies were recovered from a forest ditch four days later, on 27.08.2011

The Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and additional terms under Sections 307/34, 201/34 IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act

P.W. 1 acted as the sole eyewitness to the initial assault, though he remained silent for four days before reporting the matter

1. Whether the informant Soma Mahli (P.W. 1) is a trustworthy and reliable witness to sustain the conviction of the appellants?

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Court applied the "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring that the chain of evidence be so complete as to exclude any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused

It relied on Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh to emphasize that moral certainty cannot replace legal proof

Regarding the reliability of a solitary witness, the Court applied Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State, holding that the testimony of a sole eyewitness must be of "sterling quality" and free from blemish

State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda was applied to establish that unexplained delay by an eyewitness in disclosing the names of assailants is a serious infirmity that destroys witness credibility

The Court found the prosecution's case rested on an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence and a highly suspect sole witness

The Court noted significant contradictions in P.W. 1’s testimony regarding the source of light (torch) used for identification

Crucially, the distance between P.W. 1’s house and the crime scene was approximately 1 km, making it improbable for him to have heard the "halla" (commotion) and reached the scene in time

The Court characterized P.W. 1’s four-day silence as "unnatural conduct," especially given that the victims were his own brother and sister-in-law

The prosecution's failure to examine the village Chowkidar—to whom the informant allegedly reported the event—created a vital gap in the evidence

Additionally, the medical evidence confirmed the victims died of sharp-cut injuries to the neck (beheading), whereas P.W. 1 only described an assault with lathi (sticks), failing to account for the actual cause of death at the second location

The Court held that the testimony of P.W. 1 lacked the necessary "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction

Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2017 and the order of sentence dated 27.05.2017. The Appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith from custody