Supreme Court Holds That Conviction Cannot Rest Solely on a Solitary Injured Witness When His Testimony Is Inconsistent and Uncorroborated

Held: The Supreme Court held that where the prosecution case rests substantially on the testimony of a solitary injured eyewitness, such testimony must inspire full confidence and be free from material inconsistencies, and when the witness’s version is wavering, uncorroborated by other injured witnesses, and contradicted by medical and forensic evidence, it cannot form the sole basis for sustaining a conviction.

Summary: The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 504 IPC based primarily on the testimony of the informant-injured witness, while all other injured eyewitnesses either turned hostile or stated that due to darkness they could not identify the assailants. The Supreme Court examined the FIR, medical evidence, post-mortem reports, seizure memos, and cross-examination of witnesses, and found serious inconsistencies in the informant’s account regarding the place and manner of firing, the specific role attributed to the appellant, and the circumstances of indiscriminate firing. The Court also noted the absence of forensic linkage between the recovered weapon and cartridges, non-recovery of the alleged pistol, lack of motive for killing two deceased persons, and the improbability of the prosecution narrative in light of the surrounding circumstances.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt, his bail bonds were discharged, and all pending applications stood disposed of.