Contradictions In Sole Eyewitness Testimony Fatal To Prosecution Case, Supreme Court Acquits Four In Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 18) acquitted four persons convicted of murder, holding that discrepancies in the testimony of the sole interested eyewitness rendered it unreliable, and that a conviction could not be sustained solely on such evidence in the absence of corroboration.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard a criminal appeal in which the appellants-convicts assailed their conviction, contending that the sole eyewitness, the deceased's mother (PW-4), had given contradictory testimony about how the incident occurred and about the source of the information allegedly conveyed to her by her granddaughter.

“It is a well-settled law that merely because the witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. As such, we have closely scrutinized the deposition given by PW-4, who is the mother of the deceased. As observed hereinabove, there are material contradictions in her deposition regarding the manner in which the incident took place and with regard to which the information about the incident was given by her granddaughter.”, the court observed.

The case pertained to the murder of one Goreylal. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the informant and eyewitness, PW-4, stated that her granddaughter, informed her that members of the 'Teli' community were assaulting her son near a pond.

PW-4 claimed she rushed to the spot and saw seven accused persons assaulting his son Goreylal with sticks (lathis) and stones, with his hands tied behind his back. She later found him dead. Based primarily on her testimony, the trial court convicted all seven accused under Sections 302 (murder) read with 149 (unlawful assembly) and 148 (rioting) of the Indian Penal Code, which was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi observed that since the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of (PW-4), the victim's mother, there were “major contradictions” between her FIR and her court deposition. More critically, during cross-examination, she admitted “she cannot tell which accused's lathi (stick) and which accused's stone had hit Goreylal.”

The court found this vagueness fatal to the prosecution's case, especially under charges of unlawful assembly (Section 149 IPC), where specific roles are often examined. “Simply relying upon the deposition given by PW-4, conviction cannot be recorded,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed

Cause Title: PUNIMATI & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS (and connected cases)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1224

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. Manu Parashar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate General Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Shivam Ganeshia, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Kapil Katare, Adv. Ms. Rajnandani Kumari, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR