Conviction Based on a Single, Unreliable Eyewitness Unsafe; Independent Corroboration is a Must When Doubt Arises: Patna High Court - 2025-05-15

Court Orders & Legal Analysis.

Patna High Court Acquits 6 in Murder Case, Cites Unreliable Sole Eyewitness and Suppressed FIR

PATNA — In a significant ruling on the standards of criminal proof, the Patna High Court has acquitted six individuals convicted of a 2003 murder, overturning a trial court's life imprisonment sentence. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Shailendra Singh , held that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness who is not "wholly reliable," especially when the prosecution fails to produce independent corroborating evidence.

The Court granted the "benefit of doubt" to the appellants, highlighting major inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, the suppression of the initial police report, and the questionable credibility of the star witness.

---

Case Background: A Roadside Ambush and a Land Dispute

The case originates from the murder of Tarni Yadav on July 8, 2003, in Lakhisarai district. According to the prosecution, the informant, Rai Sahab Yadav (PW-3), was riding a motorcycle with his uncle, the deceased, when they were ambushed by 21 armed individuals. The informant claimed he escaped while his uncle was shot multiple times and killed on the spot. The motive was attributed to a long-standing dispute over five to six bighas of "Gair-majarua" land.

Based on this account, the Fast Track Court-2nd, Lakhisarai, convicted six of the accused—Mukesh Yadav, Jalandhar Yadav, Bijay Yadav, Ramgulam Yadav, Tital Yadav, and Nandan Yadav—under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment in 2017.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellants' Counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Narayan, mounted a strong challenge to the conviction, arguing:

• Suppressed FIR: The official First Information Report (FIR), recorded at the crime scene at 9:30 am, was an "afterthought." He pointed to the testimony of another prosecution witness (PW-2), who stated that he and the informant had already gone to the police station at 9:00 am and given a written statement, which was never produced in court.
• Unreliable Eyewitness: The star witness and informant (PW-3), who was only 13 at the time of the incident, was not credible. His testimony in court improved upon the original FIR by naming more people as active shooters.
• Lack of Independent Witnesses: Despite the FIR mentioning many locals witnessing the daytime crime, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, relying solely on the deceased's relatives.
• Alternative Motive: The deceased and his family had a significant criminal history, suggesting the murder could have been committed by other enemies.

The State and the Informant's counsel argued:

• The testimony of the informant (PW-3) was clear, consistent, and sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt.
• Medical evidence confirmed death by multiple firearm injuries, corroborating the eyewitness account of indiscriminate firing.
• The land dispute provided a strong and established motive for the crime.

---

Court's Scrutiny Reveals Holes in Prosecution Story

The High Court conducted a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence and found the prosecution's case to be riddled with doubts.

"If two interpretations of the evidence are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the latter must be favoured," the bench observed, invoking the 'two views theory' or the principle of benefit of doubt.

The Court's key findings included:

1. Other 'Eyewitnesses' Discredited: The bench concluded that PW-1 and PW-2 (brothers of the deceased) were not eyewitnesses, as their own testimony revealed they arrived at the scene after hearing about the incident.

2. Suppression of First Report: The Court found merit in the defense's claim that the initial version of events given to the police was suppressed. The contradiction between PW-2's statement about visiting the police station at 9:00 am and the official FIR time of 9:30 am at the crime scene created a "strong doubt" about the genesis of the prosecution's case.

3. Credibility of the Sole Eyewitness (PW-3): The bench determined that PW-3 was not a "wholly reliable" witness whose testimony could single-handedly support a conviction. The Court noted several red flags:

   • His young age (13) at the time of the incident, contrasted with the highly detailed FIR naming 21 accused with parentage.
   • His significant improvements in court, expanding the list of assailants.
   • His own criminal background, along with the deceased's.

Quoting precedents from the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated a crucial legal principle:

"Where a single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness... the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony before recording conviction."

The failure of the prosecution to produce any of the several independent villagers who witnessed the crime proved fatal. "Withholding of these persons by the prosecution goes against the prosecution," the judgment stated, suggesting their testimony might have been unfavorable.

---

Final Verdict: Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt

Concluding that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction based on such shaky evidence, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment.

"We are of the view that though the said witness [PW-3] might have seen the commission of the alleged occurrence but he does not seem to be wholly reliable... in absence of independent corroboration of his evidence, it is not safe to hold the appellants liable for the commission of the alleged murder," the Court ruled.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges. Those on bail were discharged from their bonds, and the appellant in custody was ordered to be released forthwith.