The Gauhati High Court reaffirms that conviction for murder can rest on the reliable and cogent evidence of a single eyewitness—even if the witness is a close relative—so long as their testimony inspires confidence and is corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances; non-examination of additional eyewitnesses and non-recovery of the weapon are not fatal. This case re-applies and clarifies Supreme Court precedent, upholds existing law, and stands as binding authority for all courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL.A(J)/32/2020 of DHAN GOWALA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM |
| CNR | GAHC010088102020 |
| Date of Registration | 18-06-2020 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justices Manish Choudhury and Marli Vankung |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction; authoritative on interpretation of Section 300 IPC and solitary eyewitness testimony |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence by Additional Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act, CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC may be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the evidence cogent, reliable, and trustworthy; the relationship of the eyewitness to the deceased or accused (even a close relative) does not, by itself, render the evidence untrustworthy. Non-examination of other alleged eyewitnesses, where their absence is explained or efforts were made to secure their presence, is not fatal. Non-recovery of the weapon or bloodstained clothes does not vitiate conviction when direct evidence is available. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight/heat of passion) is not attracted when the accused acts in a cruel and inordinate manner, such as inflicting a deep incised injury on an unarmed person’s vital part, causing instantaneous death. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was convicted for murdering his brother-in-law by inflicting a deep incised injury to the neck with a dao, in the courtyard of their shared home. The incident was reported promptly. The only eyewitness examined was the informant/mother-in-law of the accused. Other witnesses were post-occurrence witnesses. Prosecution efforts to secure the accused’s wife (another alleged eyewitness) failed. The accused set up an alibi, but no supporting evidence was led. The medical evidence fully corroborated the eyewitness account. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and trial courts within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate courts; Supreme Court (as an application/clarification of existing Supreme Court precedent) |
| Overrules | None specified; affirms trial court conviction and clarifies legal position |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a conviction for murder can be founded solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, including a close relative, provided their version is trustworthy and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.
- Explains that non-examination of other listed eyewitnesses is not fatal if the prosecution made genuine efforts to secure their attendance and their absence is explained.
- Non-recovery of the alleged weapon or bloodstained clothes by police does not, per se, invalidate conviction where there is reliable direct evidence.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight/heat of passion) was specifically analyzed and held inapplicable when the act is excessively cruel or the assailant takes undue advantage, such as inflicting fatal injuries on an unarmed victim.
- The judgment is a binding authority within Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, and a useful citation for issues relating to solitary eyewitness and murder convictions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the entire evidence and found that only P.W.8 (the mother-in-law of the accused and mother of the deceased) was an eyewitness; her account was coherent, reliable, and consistent with medical evidence.
- The absence of the accused’s wife (another alleged eyewitness) was not a fatal flaw, as genuine efforts were made to summon her and her absence was explained.
- Citing Kartik Malhar, Vadivelu Thevar, and Rajesh Yadav, the Court held that the law does not require corroboration if the single witness’s account is credible; quality prevails over quantity.
- The Court distinguished between “interested” and “natural” witnesses, relying on Supreme Court authority to hold that a close relationship alone does not render testimony suspect.
- The medical evidence (post-mortem report) corroborated the eyewitness account regarding the nature, cause, and circumstances of the fatal injury.
- The Court applied Supreme Court dicta (Rayavarapu Punnayya; Virsa Singh) on the distinction between “culpable homicide” and “murder,” and examined in detail the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (Prakash Chand; Balu Sudam Khalde).
- On facts, the Court found the attack was not in a sudden fight or in the heat of passion without cruelty: the accused inflicted a deep, instantly fatal cut to the neck of an unarmed person, and thus, Exception 4 was not attracted; it was a case of murder.
- The Court further clarified that non-recovery of weapon or clothes is not fatal where direct and reliable eyewitness evidence exists (State v. Laly alias Manikandan).
- Case law cited by the defence on circumstantial evidence or hearsay evidence was distinguished and found inapposite, as the present case hinged on direct eyewitness testimony.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The wife of the accused (alleged eyewitness) was not examined; her non-examination was fatal.
- The two minor children, present at the time, were not examined.
- The investigating officer did not recover the weapon allegedly used nor the bloodstained clothes.
- Other witnesses were hearsay witnesses; only P.W.8 claimed to be an eyewitness and her evidence lacked corroboration.
- The accused set up an alibi, stating he was not present at the place of occurrence; this was corroborated by the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.7.
- Alternatively, the act fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as it occurred during resistance and a sudden altercation, thus meriting conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Respondent (State):
- Non-examination of wife/children was not material as P.W.8’s testimony was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence; no dent was created in cross-examination.
- The prosecution sought the attendance of the wife, but she could not be traced as she had left after the incident.
- Non-recovery of the weapon/apparels is immaterial where direct eyewitness evidence exists.
- The accused’s plea of alibi was not supported by any independent evidence.
- Injury was caused in a cruel manner on a vital part (neck) of the deceased; case fell squarely under Section 302 IPC; Exception 4 not applicable as act was excessively cruel.
Factual Background
The case arose from a familial dispute in which the accused, Dhan Gowala, fatally attacked his brother-in-law, Matilal Ghatowar, by inflicting a deep incised wound to his neck with a dao at about 6:00–8:00 p.m. on 20 March 2017 in the courtyard of their shared home. The incident was immediately reported by the deceased’s mother (P.W.8), who is also the accused’s mother-in-law, at Gohpur Police Station, resulting in registration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC. The accused absconded after the incident but was later arrested and charged. Only P.W.8 testified as an eyewitness; the attendance of other alleged eyewitnesses could not be secured despite efforts. All other witnesses were post-occurrence witnesses.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 299 and 300 IPC: The Court set out and contrasted the definitions of “culpable homicide” and “murder,” laying focus on the requirements of intention, knowledge, and the nature of the fatal injury.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: The statutory test for reducing murder to culpable homicide was analyzed—specifically, “sudden fight,” “absence of premeditation,” “heat of passion,” and “not acting in a cruel or unusual manner.” The Court found Exception 4 inapplicable on the facts, as the accused acted with cruelty by inflicting a lethal wound on the neck of an unarmed victim.
- Section 134, Evidence Act: Affirmed that no particular number of witnesses is needed to prove a fact; reliability is paramount.
- Section 357A, CrPC: Directed District Legal Services Authority to award compensation to the victim(s).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None. Both Justices (Manish Choudhury and Marli Vankung) concurred in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Directions issued to District Legal Services Authority to conduct an inquiry and award compensation to the victim(s) as per the Victim Compensation Scheme.
- Appreciation recorded for service of Amicus Curiae and direction for her remuneration as per notified fee structure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and clarifies established Supreme Court precedent on convictions based on solitary eyewitnesses and the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.