Uncorroborated testimony of interested witness with material improvements insufficient to sustain conviction amid defective investigation.

The appellant, Ganga Singh, was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Kiran Devi and Krishna Murari Kunwar (a mother and son) on 20.04.2015.

According to the informant, Julie Kumari (PW-4), while returning from a wheat field at night, they were accosted by the accused persons near a bamboo grove.

It was alleged that the appellant, along with others, opened fire at the victims to pressure them into compromising a previous murder case involving the informant's father.

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 and 120-B/34 of the IPC, and 5 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appellant challenged this on grounds of defective investigation and unreliable sole-eyewitness testimony.

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a single interested eyewitness (PW-4) is sufficient for conviction when it contains material improvements and contradictions.

2. Whether the failure of the prosecution to seize or produce the alleged source of light (torch/solar light) and the failure to conduct forensic/ballistic examinations on seized materials vitiates the case.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the participation and common intention of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court primarily applied Section 302, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It relied on Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which stipulates that the quality, not quantity, of evidence matters.

It applied the "sterling witness" test from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), requiring a sole witness's version to be unassailable and consistent.

It cited Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat regarding the need for caution with interested witnesses and Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the circumspection required in cases of defective investigation.

The Court observed that while the medical evidence confirmed death by firearm injuries, it was neutral regarding the identity of the assailant.

The prosecution’s case rested entirely on PW-4, whose testimony showed material improvements from her initial statement to her court deposition, specifically regarding the overt acts of the appellant.

The Court noted a total lack of corroboration from other natural witnesses (PW-2 and PW-5), who were present but failed to identify the appellant.

The investigation was found deeply flawed: the police failed to seize the torch used for identification in the dark, failed to perform ballistic testing on recovered shells, and found no physical evidence (like trampled crops or wheat) at the alleged place of occurrence to support the informant's narrative.

The Court reasoned that these gaps, combined with the appellant's status as a distant relative with a weak motive, created a "reasonable doubt".

The Court ruled that the testimony of PW-4 did not meet the "sterling quality" threshold and the defective investigation caused serious prejudice to the accused.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2018, and acquitted Ganga Singh of all charges, ordering his immediate release.