Is an inconsistent and uncorroborated solitary eyewitness account enough to sustain conviction under Sections 302/307 IPC?

Summary

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• A lone eyewitness’s fluctuating account on key points—place of firing, role of the accused and sequence of events—does not meet the high standard required to convict for serious offences.
• Hostile or silent testimony from multiple injured witnesses about absence of light or inability to identify shooters undermines an otherwise “prompt” FIR.
• Forensic disconnection between the seized rifle and the magazine/cartridge recovered at the scene raises reasonable doubt about weapon identity.
• Courts must scrutinize plausibility (e.g., motive for killing uninvolved bystanders) before resting conviction on solitary ocular evidence.
• This judgment can be cited to challenge convictions based solely on one uncorroborated and inconsistent eyewitness testimony.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The appellant’s conviction derived entirely from PW-1’s testimony, but ten other injured witnesses either denied seeing shooters or were declared hostile.
2. PW-1’s statements on where shots were fired, who fired them and how the rifle was snatched were internally inconsistent.
3. Forensic evidence: the rifle seized from one accused lacked its magazine, yet a separate magazine and cartridge found at the spot were not linked to that rifle.
4. The killing of two neutral bystanders at close range—shown by blackening around entry wounds—could not be explained by the prosecution’s theory of stray bullets.
5. Inherent powers to secure justice require that when major contradictions and improbabilities persist, benefit of doubt must be given, leading to acquittal.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

• Sole reliance on PW-1’s testimony is unsafe given his criminal antecedents and inconsistent statements.
• Multiple injured witnesses consistently said the lights went off, making identification impossible.
• Weapon-seizure story is suspicious: rifle without magazine, recovered magazine unlinked, no pistol recovered.
• Indiscriminate firing killing uninvolved persons undermines motive and prosecution narrative.
• Failure to examine the first Investigating Officer and lack of blood-stained clothing recovery point to gaps.

Respondent (State)

• PW-1 lodged a prompt FIR at 10:30 PM naming the accused; time and place remain uncontested.
• Other witnesses’ hostility did not shake PW-1’s core narrative of assault and shooting.
• Injuries on PW-1 confirm his presence; his testimony was not materially dislodged.
• Seizure memo and FIR mention weapons—rifle and country-made pistol—tying the accused to the crime.

Factual Background

On 20 October 2004, during a village Durga-idol drama, Anjani Singh allegedly struck the informant’s son, then returned around 9 PM with two co-accused to shoot at the informant. A rifle and pistol were fired, two bystanders died and several were injured. A prompt FIR was lodged the same night. At trial, ten injured witnesses turned hostile or contradicted the prosecution, leaving PW-1 as the sole identifier. The High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, and this appeal followed.

Statutory Analysis

• Sections 302/34 IPC (murder jointly), 307/34 IPC (attempt to murder jointly), and 504 IPC (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) formed the charges.
• The Court applied principles of ocular evidence reliability, benefit of doubt under Section 482 CrPC inherent powers, and basic forensic linkage requirements, without expanding or narrowing statutory definitions.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms established standards for lone eyewitness testimony and benefit of doubt.