Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Testimony of Related Eyewitnesses; Holds Absence of Independent Witnesses Not Fatal
Case Name: Kuldeep v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026
Citation: CRA-D-853-DB of 2015
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parmod Goyal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that conviction can be safely based on the testimony of related eyewitnesses if their evidence is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. The Court further held that non-examination of independent public witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution case where ocular and medical evidence fully corroborate each other.
Summary: The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction dated 5 March 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, whereby the appellant was convicted for the murder of Rajbir and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 24 February 2014, following an altercation over cleanliness in the locality, the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife near a Durga temple at Nathupur, Gurgaon, causing fatal injuries.
The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, including Dayanand, the cousin of the deceased, who was the complainant and an eyewitness, and Birmati, the wife of the deceased. Both witnesses consistently deposed regarding the quarrel preceding the incident and the manner in which the appellant inflicted multiple knife blows on the deceased. The FIR was lodged promptly within three hours of the occurrence, lending further credibility to the prosecution version.
The defence contended that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and hence interested witnesses, that no independent witness was examined, that motive was weak, and that recovery of the knife was doubtful. The High Court rejected these submissions, reiterating settled law that relationship by itself does not render a witness unreliable. The Court observed that relatives are often the most natural witnesses and are unlikely to falsely implicate an innocent person while letting the real culprit escape.
The Court found the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 to be consistent with each other and with the medical evidence. The post-mortem report revealed multiple stab wounds sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, fully corroborating the ocular account. The Court further held that the motive of prior quarrel over cleanliness, though simple, was sufficient and that motive is not a sine qua non where there is direct eyewitness evidence.
On the issue of recovery, the Court held that once reliable ocular evidence is available, recovery of the weapon assumes only corroborative value. The recovery of the knife pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused was found to be duly proved through official witnesses, and absence of independent witnesses was held not to be fatal in the facts of the case.
Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the trial court were affirmed.