2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1752

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Deepak Roshan, JJ
Bindeshwar Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 139 of 1998 (R)

Conviction for murder is sustainable on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if credible. Defective investigation alone does not invalidate the prosecution's case. Intentional, premeditated fatal attacks with lethal weapons on vital body parts constitute murder, excluding the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part I - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Murder vs Culpable homicide - Testimonies of sole eyewitness corroborated by medical evidence - Conviction based on single witness testimony.

(B) Witness - Hostile witness - Merely because a witness is declared hostile does not result in the rejection of their testimony in its entirety - Courts can rely upon the creditworthy portions of such testimony which is corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 43-45)

(C) Criminal Trial - Defective investigation - Defective investigation by itself does not vitiate the prosecution's case if there is credible eyewitness testimony and other compelling evidence corroborating the version of the incident. (Paras 97-101)

(D) Culpable Homicide - Murder vs Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Intention and premeditation - Where an attack is intentional, premeditated, and involves multiple blows with a lethal weapon on vital parts of the body, the offence constitutes murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 85, 91-93)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murder following an incident where the deceased was attacked with a sharp-edged weapon in a courtyard. The prosecution relied on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the offense should be categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, citing alleged sudden provocation and lack of premeditation.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was trustworthy and consistent with the medical evidence. The court concluded that the attack on the vital parts of the body with a lethal weapon demonstrated clear intention and premeditation. Additionally, the court observed that minor omissions by the investigative agency do not undermine the reliability of the prosecution's overall evidence when supported by ocular and medical findings.

Issues: 1. Whether the entire evidence of witnesses declared hostile must be discarded. 2. Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a sole eyewitness. 3. Whether the offense falls under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Whether procedural lapses in investigation invalidate the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the testimony of a hostile witness should not be rejected in its entirety if it finds support from other evidence. It reaffirmed that a conviction can be firmly based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided the court finds it credible and robust. Furthermore, the court held that where a fatal injury is intentional and aimed at a vital part during an unprovoked or premeditated act, it constitutes murder. Defective investigation, while noted, does not warrant acquittal if other credible evidence establishes the guilt of the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.