Unshaken testimony of an injured eyewitness can independently sustain conviction despite absent forensic corroboration.

On 9 October 2009, a VDP Secretary informed Rupahihat Police Station by telephone that a male and female teacher had been assaulted with a sharp weapon; the information was recorded as GD Entry No. 204.

The deceased, Dibyahas Saikia, was later found dead, while PW-8, who had been travelling with him, sustained grievous cut injuries to both hands.

PW-4, the deceased’s wife, lodged a written FIR on 10 October 2009 naming the appellant as the assailant, stating that he had stopped the vehicle, attacked the deceased, and injured PW-8.

The appellant was alleged to have surrendered at the police station with weapons and blood-stained clothes; the weapons were seized but were not sent for forensic examination.

PW-8 identified the appellant in court and gave direct evidence that he attacked the deceased with a dao and then assaulted her.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 326 and 341 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, with concurrent sentences under Sections 326 and 341 IPC.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal.

1. Whether the testimony of PW-8, an injured eyewitness, was reliable and sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302, 326 and 341 IPC despite alleged contradictions, omissions and hearsay discrepancies in the evidence of other prosecution witnesses.

2. Whether the telephonic information recorded as GD Entry No. 204 constituted the first information report, rendering the subsequent written FIR impermissible as a second FIR or otherwise affecting the validity of the investigation and trial.

3. Whether the absence of forensic examination of the seized weapons and the alleged absence of proof of motive created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt.

4. Whether the alleged omissions and additions in the statements of PW-5, PW-9, PW-14 and PW-16 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. materially undermined their credibility or the prosecution case.

The court applied Sections 302, 326 and 341 IPC, concerning murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and wrongful restraint, respectively.

It held that the testimony of an injured eyewitness carries high evidentiary value and should not be discarded unless affected by material contradictions or compelling circumstances, relying on State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324.

It further relied on Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 20 SCC 114, for the principles that absence or insufficiency of motive is of limited significance where there is direct evidence, and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the prosecution case unless they go to its root.

Under Sections 154 and 162 Cr.P.C., a telephonic or GD entry constitutes an FIR only where it discloses sufficient particulars of a cognizable offence and sets the investigation in motion; a subsequent written report is not impermissible merely because an earlier telephonic message was recorded, as explained in Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175.

The court also considered Yanob Sheikh @ Gagu v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 6 SCC 428, on the impermissibility of a second FIR concerning the same occurrence where the earlier report contains sufficient information and the investigations overlap.

Contradictions and omissions in prior statements are governed by Sections 162 Cr.P.C. and 145 of the Evidence Act.

The court found PW-8’s presence at the scene established by her serious and lasting injuries, which were medically proved to be grievous incised wounds caused by a heavy sharp weapon.

Her account that the appellant stopped the vehicle, struck the deceased, and then attacked her was direct, consistent and not shaken in cross-examination.

The evidence of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 regarding PW-8’s immediate disclosure of the appellant’s identity, together with the medical evidence, the appellant’s alleged surrender with weapons, and the evidence of motive arising from his jealousy, provided corroborative circumstances.

The court held that the absence of forensic examination of the weapons did not displace otherwise reliable ocular evidence.

It also held that the telephonic message merely conveyed that an assault had occurred and requested police intervention; it did not contain the essential details necessary to treat it as the FIR.

Therefore, the written FIR was not an impermissible second FIR and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the appellant.

Finally, the court found that the alleged omissions in the statements of PW-5, PW-9, PW-14 and PW-16 were not established and did not materially contradict their court testimony.

The sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with the concurrent sentences imposed under Sections 326 and 341 IPC, was maintained.

The Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.