A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of parity.

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 12-12-2025

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Ajay Singh challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2018 and the order of sentence dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2015, arising out of Nawanagar Police Station Case No. 85 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbayan of the informant Buchun Singh recorded on 05.05.2015 at about 8:00 PM at Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur. According to the informant, on the evening of the occurrence, he along with the deceased, who was a retired Army personnel, was sitting near the Hanuman Temple when the appellant Ajay Singh arrived and after a verbal altercation, allegedly caught hold of the deceased and inflicted multiple injuries with a sharp cutting weapon on his abdomen, back and chest. The deceased fell on the spot and was immediately taken for medical treatment but succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of the said fardbayan, Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 85 of 2015 was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses including eyewitnesses and the doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination. The prosecution also exhibited the fardbayan, inquest report, and post-mortem report. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , in which he denied the allegations and stated that the prosecution witnesses had falsely deposed against him. No defence witness was examined on his behalf.

5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding of guilt and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded the aforesaid sentence. Assailing the conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

6. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of the charge against the appellant. Out of them, PW-1 to PW-4 were cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, all four turned hostile in the course of trial and did not support the prosecution version. PW-5 also did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial court rests substantially on the testimony of PW-6, the informant, along with the corroborative value of medical and official evidence. The depositions are examined in detail as follows.

7. PW-1 Bhim Paswan, who was projected as an eyewitness to the incident, did not support the prosecution case when examined before the trial court. He denied having witnessed the occurrence and stated that he could not identify the assailant. He was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution and cross-examined, but no material admission could be elicited to suggest that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. His testimony therefore does not len