Abdul Basar vs State of Arunachal Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14474

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 302 - Culpable homicide vs. Murder - Third clause of Section 300 - Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - The prosecution must prove (1) that the bodily injury is present, (2) that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and (3) that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury - Intention and knowledge are subjective and are to be gathered from circumstances such as the weapon used, ferocity of attack, and multiplicity of of injuries (Paras 28-30).

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Solitary eye-witness - Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a solitary eye-witness provided it is strong, reliable, conclusive, and free from blemish - Evidence is to be weighed and not counted - For assessing value, the court must examine whether the presence of the witness at the place of occurrence was natural and whether the witness is neutral (Paras 19-22).

(C) Criminal Law - Recovery of weapon - Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused - If there is direct evidence in the form of an eye-witness, the accused can be convicted even in the absence of the recovery of the weapon (Paras 25-27).

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300, Exceptions 1 and 4 - Grave and sudden provocation; sudden fight - To bring in Exception 4, it must be shown that the death was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner - Inflicting multiple injuries with a sharp weapon on an unarmed person is an act of taking undue advantage/acting in a cruel manner, thereby excluding the applicability of Exception 4 (Paras 33-35).

Facts of the case:
A person was assaulted with a dao, resulting in a deep incision on the neck and a cut injury on the head, leading to instantaneous death. A sole eye-witness, a co-worker, witnessed the accused assailant booking the deceased with a repeated assault. The Trial Court convicted the accused for murder under Section 302, IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed against the conviction, challenging the reliability of the sole eye-witness and the non-recovery of the weapon on the basis of a disclosure statement.

Findings of Court:
The testimony of the sole eye-witness was found to be reliable and conclusive. The nature of the injuries, as reported in the post-mortem report, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused's claim of self-defence or sudden fight was treated as an afterthought and not supported by evidence.

Issues: The main issues were whether the conviction based on the sole testimony of a solitary eye-witness was sustainable, whether the non-recovery of the weapon was fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the case fell within the exceptions to murder under Section 300, IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sole eye-witness was a wholly reliable witness whose presence at the scene was natural. The absence of motive and non-recovery of weapon are insignificant when direct, reliable ocular evidence exists. The intentional infliction of multiple severe injuries on a vital part of the body of an unarmed person indicates an intent to kill, falling squarely under the Clause 'Thirdly' of Section 300, IPC, and cannot be brought under the Exception 1 or 4 of Section 300, IPC.

Result: Criminal appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Murder — Conviction under Section 302, IPC for killing with a dao — Appeal from jail against conviction and life sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Appellant: Conviction based on unreliable sole eye-witness; no motive; death caused by sudden provocation or sudden fight should fall under Exceptions to Section 300. (Para 9 )

3. Sole eye-witness was wholly reliable; his presence was natural and testimony consistent. Absence of motive irrelevant when direct evidence exists. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

4. A conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a wholly reliable eye-witness. Motive is irrelevant when direct evidence establishes the crime. (Para 19 , 24 )

5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction under Section 302, IPC and life sentence affirmed. (Para 36 )

6. Can a conviction be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness?

Yes, if the witness is wholly reliable, strong, conclusive, and free from blemish, as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 19 )

7. Does absence of motive weaken a case based on direct evidence?

No. Motive is relevant in circumstantial evidence cases but becomes insignificant when direct, reliable, and conclusive evidence of the crime exists. (Para 24 )

8. Is recovery of the murder weapon essential to convict an accused?

No. Direct eye-witness testimony is sufficient to convict even without recovery of the weapon used in the offence. (Para 26 )

9. When does a murder case fall under Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC?

For Exception 4 to apply, the death must be caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly. (Para 34 , 35 )

10. What constitutes murder under Clause Thirdly of Section 300, IPC?

Murder under Clause Thirdly requires intention to inflict a particular bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 29 , 30 )

For the Appellant : Mr. Uttam Bori, Legal Aid Counsel For the Respondent : Ms. Laxmi Hage, Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh Date on which judgment is reserved : 30.04.2026 Date of Hearing : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & oRDER [Manish Choudhury, J]

1. This criminal appeal from jail is directed against a Judgment dated

20.11.2019 and an Order on Sentence dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang and Longding at Khonsa, Arunachal Pradesh in Khonsa Sessions Case no. 46/2019. By the Judgment dated 20.11.2019, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and thereafter, by the Order on Sentence dated 22.11.2019, the accused-appellant [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the accused’, at places, for easy reference] has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another two months.

2. The informant, one Sri Kabir Ahmed [P.W.2] lodged the First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Kharsang Police Station on 11.08.2018 stating inter alia that at around 22-15 hrs on 11.08.2018, there was a quarrel among his labourers at their work site located at Electric Colony, Kharsang under influence of alcohol. During the said quarrel, one of the labourers namely Sri Abul Basar [the accused-appellant] had physically assaulted his co-labourer namely Sri Ajibur Rehman [the deceased] with a dao. The FIR further mentioned that as a result of the assault, the deceased sustained grievous injury on his throat and succumbed to the injury on the spot.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Kharsang Police Station registered it as Kharsang Police Station Case no. 11/2018 under Section 302, IPC @ 23-30 hrs on 11.08.2018 and took up the investigation of the case himself.

4. Immediately after registration of the FIR and in the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] proceeded to the Place of Occurrence [P.O.] at Electric Colony, Kharsang. It was on the way to the P.O., the I.O. found the accused coming from the opposite direction and on being identified, the accused was apprehended by the I.O. while he was trying to run away. Then, he proceeded to the P.O. As the dead body of the deceased was found at the P.O., the I.O. held inquest on the dead body of the deceased at first and thereafter, prepared a Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-4]. Subsequently, the dead body was sent to the Primary Health Centre [PHC], Kharsang for post-mortem examination. The I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [the ‘Code’ or the ‘CrPC’, for short]. During the course of investigation, the alleged weapon of assault, that is, one dao measuring 26.50 inches [full length] with a handle [bamboo] of 14 ½ inches [metal wrapped] was seized at 12-30 hrs on 12.08.2018 in presence of two witnesses viz. [i] Sri Rajesh Sahu [P.W.1] and [ii] Sri Ram Tanti [P.W.3] vide a Seizure Memo, M.R. no. 38/2018 [Ext.-1]. The I.O. collected the Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.-3].

5. After completing investigation into the case, Kharsang Police Station Case no. 18/2018, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge Sheet no. 06/2019 dated 10.06.2019 finding a prima facie case against the accused to proceed for trial for committing the offence under Section 302, IPC. On submission of the Charge-Sheet before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Changlang [the JMFC, Changlang], the Court of JMFC, Changlang after completing the formalities as required under Section 207 , CrPC committed the case record to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang and Longdin