SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(MP) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN, JJ.
Bifaiya Baiga – Appellant 
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1118 of 2016
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Surendra Kumar Khare - Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate

A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the testimony of a single, reliable eye-witness under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. The quality of evidence prevails over quantity, and prior enmity does not automatically disqualify a witness if the testimony is credible and consistent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Testimony of a single witness - Conviction based on the testimony of a single, credible eye-witness is legally permissible - Law emphasizes the quality of evidence over the quantity - Section 134 categorically stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. (Paras 21, 22)

(B) Reliability of Witness - Testimony of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of existing enmity with the accused if the evidence is found to be reliable, free from material contradictions, and if the presence of the witness at the scene of the incident is natural. (Paras 11, 21)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of murder for assaulting a woman with an axe near a hand pump. A resident of the area witnessed the assault and informed the victim's husband and the police. Medical evidence revealed deep head injuries caused by a hard, double-edged object. The weapon used was recovered from the attic of the accused's house, and forensic reports confirmed the presence of human blood on the weapon. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that it relied on a single eye-witness who was paralyzed and had a land dispute with the accused.

Findings of Court:
The court found the eye-witness's testimony to be highly reliable and consistent, noting that no material contradictions appeared during cross-examination. Given the proximity of the witness's house to the site of the incident, his presence was deemed natural. The forensic and medical evidence further corroborated the oral testimony regarding the cause of death and the weapon used.

Issues: Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness who possesses a known enmity with the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court evaluates the quality rather than the number of witnesses. A conviction can be based on a single witness if the testimony is found to be wholly reliable and above suspicion. Prior enmity does not automatically render a witness's evidence unreliable if the testimony is credible and the witness's presence at the scene is established as natural.

Result: The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences against the person
      • murder (Para 1, 21, 23)
  • practice and procedure
    • appeal
      • criminal appeal
        • appeal against conviction (Para 1, 4, 24)
    • evidence
      • witness testimony
        • single witness testimony (Para 21, 22)
        • interested witness (Para 4, 11)

Table of Contents

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder by axe — Appeal against conviction. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Appellant argues sole eye-witness is unreliable and contradictions exist; State supports conviction. (Para 4 , 5 )

3. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld. (Para 24 )

4. Can a conviction under Section 302 IPC be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness?

Yes, a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if it is found to be wholly reliable, credible, and free from taint, as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 21 , 22 )

5. Does enmity between a witness and the accused automatically make the witness's testimony unreliable?

No. The testimony of a witness with enmity cannot be discarded solely on that ground. The court must assess the quality and reliability of the evidence. (Para 11 , 21 )

6. Is corroboration of a single witness's testimony mandatory in a murder case?

No, corroboration is not mandatory. Courts should weigh the quality of evidence, not count witnesses. Corroboration is required only as a rule of prudence in certain cases. (Para 21 )

ORDER :

Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen, J.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.09.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol (M.P.), in S.T. No.383/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of 06 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:-

2.1 On 26.08.2014 at about 1:00 PM, when complainant Hariram, who was a resident of Village Udhiya Mauhar Tola and suffering from paralysis, was cutting fodder in his field, Puniya Bai wife of Lalva Baiga came to take out the water from the hand pump. After taking out the water when Puniya Bai was returning back to her home accused Bifaiya Baiga came out of his house armed with Tangia (Axe) and started assaulting her, as a result of which Punia Bai fell down and thereafter accused returned back to his house. When Lalwa Baiga (husband of deceased Puniya Bai) came back, complainant Hariram informed him that accused Bifaiya Baiga had assaulted his wife Puniya Bai on account of old grudge by hitting her with a tangia.

2.2 Upon a report to this effect, Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-1 and Dehati Merg Intimation Exhibit P-2 were recorded. Thereafter, First Information Report Exhibit P-4 was recorded and the case was taken up for investigation.

3. Upon being charged under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant abjured his guilt and sought to contest further proceedings in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.383/2014 is against law and procedure, passed without minute examination of facts/evidence and proper legal provisions, and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to see the statement of Hariram (PW-4) who is eye-witness in this case because as per prosecution, he was paralyzed and even after he was paralyzed, he was cutting grass on his badi and after looking incident, he was silent for about 5 to 6 hours and has not stated anything to anybody, therefore, the said eye- witness was not reliable. According to the counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has failed to see material contradiction and omission between the prosecution witnesses. He further states that the trial Court has failed to see the statements of prosecution witnesses Lalva Baiga (PW-3), Ratnu Baiga (PW-5) and Semvati Baiga (PW-6). They are all hearsay and interested witnesses. According to him, the trial Court has further failed to see the F.S.L. report and Postmortem report because Dr. Amit Pyasi (PW-11) had opined that the cause of death was due to injury sustained on account of mar- peet which was homicidal in nature and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant is liable to be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits that after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence which has been produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has properly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and there is no such mistake in the finding of the trial Court and there are sufficient evidences against the present appellant to confirm the conviction and as such, it does not call for any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

7. Dr. Amit Pyasi (PW-11) had conducted the postmortem of Puniya Bai on 27th August 2014. He found that there was bleeding on her face and head. There was a lacerated wound on the right side of her head. It was so deep that a piece of bone had been broken off. There w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top