Conviction Upheld on Sole Eyewitness Testimony Corroborated by Medical Evidence
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.31 of 1998(R)
By Navya Tiwari
In Chanda Kharia & Dukhan Kharia v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), decided on 12.03.2026, the Jharkhand High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided such evidence is reliable and finds support from surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.
The prosecution case arose out of a long-standing land dispute between the parties. On the day of the incident, the informant and his father were proceeding to attend proceedings at the Circle Office when the informant briefly halted near a river. Upon hearing cries, he rushed ahead and witnessed the appellants assaulting his father with a khukhri and a lathi. He raised alarm and fled towards the village, and upon returning later, found his father dead, with the body having been dragged and thrown into a ditch. Based on his fardbeyan, an FIR was registered, leading to the trial and subsequent conviction of the appellants.
Challenging the conviction, the appellants argued that there were material contradictions between the fardbeyan and the informant’s deposition, that the prosecution relied on hearsay witnesses, and that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the doctor, coupled with lack of independent corroboration, rendered the case unreliable. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence and rejected these contentions. The Court reaffirmed Section 134 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact and that it is the quality, not the quantity, of evidence that is decisive.
On examining the testimony of the informant (P.W.1), the Court found it to be natural, consistent, and intrinsically credible, with his presence at the scene firmly established. His account of the assault, including identification of the appellants and the weapons used, remained consistent on material particulars and was corroborated by the medical evidence, which reflected injuries consistent with the alleged weapons. The Court held that minor discrepancies did not affect the core of the prosecution case and were insufficient to discredit an otherwise trustworthy witness. It further observed that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the doctor was not fatal in the facts of the case, as the prosecution evidence was otherwise cogent and reliable, and the conviction was not based on hearsay but on direct eyewitness testimony.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction, reinforcing the principle that a credible solitary eyewitness, supported by medical and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The Court then addressed the alleged contradictions between the fardbeyan and the deposition. It held that the discrepancy, whether the informant witnessed the assault immediately after following his father or only after hearing his cries, was minor in nature and did not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The core fact that the informant had seen the assault remained intact. Relying on settled legal principles, the Court observed that minor inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the matter cannot be a ground to discard otherwise credible testimony. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, though not eyewitnesses, was considered relevant in establishing the immediate conduct of the informant and the subsequent discovery of the dead body, thereby lending assurance to the prosecution version; their testimony was found to be consistent and unshaken in cross-examination.
Significantly, the Court found strong corroboration in the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report, which disclosed multiple incised wounds on vital parts of the body along with a blunt force injury. These injuries were consistent with the use of a sharp cutting weapon and a lathi, as described by the informant. The cause of death, being shock and haemorrhage, further reinforced the prosecution case. On the issue of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the Court held that such omission is not ipso facto fatal, especially where credible ocular evidence is available and no prejudice is shown to have been caused. It noted that the place of occurrence and the sequence of events stood sufficiently established through other evidence, including the inquest report and witness testimonies.
Similarly, with respect to the non-examination of the doctor, the Court observed that the post-mortem report had been admitted without objection under Section 294 Cr.P.C., and therefore could be read as substantive evidence. In the absence of any challenge to its genuineness, reliance on the report was legally permissible. The Court also rejected the defence contention of false implication on account of prior enmity, holding that enmity is a double-edged sword and cannot, by itself, discredit an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Upon a cumulative assessment, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the sole eyewitness was found trustworthy, duly corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, and free from material infirmities. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the appellants, who were on bail during the pendency of the appeal, were directed to surrender to undergo the sentence.
