Non-Examination of Independent Witness Not Fatal If Injured Eyewitness Testimony Is Of Sterling Quality : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction in a murder case, noting that non-examination of an independent witness would not prove fatal to the prosecution's case when the sole testimony of the injured witness was reliable, credible, and consistent.

“…convictions on the basis of the testimony of a singular eyewitness is also permissible. After all, evidence on record is to be measured for quality, not on the basis of quantity.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, while dismissing an appeal filed by a father-son duo, convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 149 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing an offence of Murder.

The Patna High Court, while affirming the conviction, had rejected the testimony of four eyewitness citing inconsistencies in their statements, however, found the injured witness testimony to be of 'sterling quality'.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that the regardless of the non-availability of the independent witness reliable testimony, the sole testimony of the injured witness cannot be brushed aside, especially when it was found out to be of sterling quality.

“Since PW-5 has withstood the test of cross-examination is an undisputed eyewitness to the incident and is also an injured witness, his testimony would be at a higher pedestal. As such, this factor too would count towards the guilt of the appellant - convicts.”, the court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302, Section 307, and Section 149 read with Section 120B — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 134 — Testimony of a Single Witness / Injured Witness — Conviction based on a solitary eye-witness is entirely permissible if the evidence is of 'sterling quality' - The law of evidence measures testimony by its quality, not quantity - The testimony of an injured witness rests on a higher pedestal because their presence at the scene is indisputable and they have withstood cross-examination - Minor differences between ocular evidence (eyewitness stating the victim was shot in the head) and medical evidence (postmortem showing entry at the back of the skull and exit at the nose) are immaterial as both consistently confirm the fatal injury to the head. [Paras 6 - 11]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 154 — First Information Report — Delay in lodging FIR — Delay cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard the prosecution's case - It merely puts the court on its guard to search for a satisfactory explanation - If the delay is explained or understandable within the totality of the circumstances, it is not fatal - In cases where witnesses face fear, threats, or require time to regain tranquillity after a traumatic event, a mere delay of a few hours does not weaken the prosecution. [Paras 9, 10]

Criminal Trial — Non-examination of Independent/Local Witnesses — Non examination of independent villagers does not compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities show that common persons naturally hesitate to get entangled in thorny legal matters out of fear, particularly where a witness in a previous trial has already been gunned down. [Relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614); Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand ((2003) 2 SCC 401); State of H.P. v. Gian Chand ((2001) 6 SCC 71); Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar ((2008) 12 SCC 173); Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2622); Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab ((2019) 8 SCC 529); Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2024) 12 SCC 494; Para 12, 13]

Cause Title: ADALAT YADAV ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 415

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Anshuman, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv.