Uncorroborated Testimony of Discreditworthy Witness Delaying Disclosure Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction

On the night of January 25–26, 1991, the body of Dukhi Oraon was discovered near a canal in Palamau

An FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants

Two months later, the police recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. involving the appellants

At trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, but the Investigating Officer was not produced

P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, whose statements were previously recorded, turned hostile, alleging police coercion

The Trial Court convicted the three appellants under Section 302/34 IPC based primarily on the testimony of P.W. 1

The appellants challenged this conviction on the grounds of unreliable witness testimony and a lack of corroboration

1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law requiring interference

2. Whether the uncorroborated and delayed testimony of a single witness (P.W. 1) is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder

The court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder and common intention

It adhered to the evidentiary principles concerning the reliability of eye-witnesses, specifically the requirement that a witness's testimony must be consistent with medical evidence (Post-Mortem Report) and the impact of unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

The court also considered the effect of witnesses turning hostile and alleging custodial coercion under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The High Court found the reliance on P.W. 1’s testimony misplaced. First, there was an unexplained two-month delay in recording the statement of P.W. 1, during which he failed to disclose the incident to any villagers

P.W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that his eyesight was weak and he did not know the accused prior to the event, making his identification unreliable

P.W. 1’s account—that the deceased was assaulted with fists and slaps—contradicted the Post-Mortem Report and Inquest Report, which indicated death by head injuries from a hard, blunt substance and strangulation

Furthermore, the other purported eye-witnesses (P.W. 5 and P.W. 6) turned hostile, testifying they were coerced by police to give dictated statements before the Magistrate

The absence of the Investigating Officer's testimony further weakened the prosecution's procedural integrity

The Court answered the primary issue in the affirmative, finding the Trial Court's judgment erroneous

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 31st January 2004 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds