Single Witness Testimony Sufficient For Conviction Says Allahabad High Court In Attempted Murder Case

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has upheld the conviction of an appellant, Gajendra, for the attempted murder of a young woman in 1982. Presided over by Justice Santosh Rai, the court clarified that the solitary testimony of an injured victim is sufficient to anchor a conviction, provided it remains consistent and is corroborated by medical evidence.

A Violent Encounter in Bijnor

The prosecution alleged that on May 19, 1982, the victim, Km. Rekha, was alone in her home in village Bharera, Bijnor, when the appellant entered the premises armed with a knife. He inflicted ten incised wounds on her body before fleeing the scene at the arrival of neighbors. Following the assault, the victim was rushed to the District Hospital, Bijnor, where Dr. V.K. Goel examined the wounds, finding them to be life-threatening. The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and two years under Section 452 IPC.

Legal Conflict: Hostile Witnesses and Reliability

During the trial, two independent witnesses, Mahender Singh and Moola Singh, were declared hostile. The defense argued that without their support, the victim’s testimony—offered as a solitary witness—was unreliable. Furthermore, the defense contested the lack of a clear motive and pointed to the victim's failure to reduce her version to writing immediately upon the investigating officer’s visit.

In rebuttal, the State argued that the status of the victim as an injured witness grants her testimony an inherent "guarantee of truthfulness." The prosecution maintained that the severity of the injuries and their location on vital organs like the chest and face were definitive proof of the appellant's intent to kill.

Analyzing the Judicial Reasoning

Justice Santosh Rai affirmed the principle that the law does not insist on a plurality of witnesses . "The evidence of a witness declared hostile is not to be rejected in its entirety; that part of it which finds support from other reliable material may be relied upon," the Court noted. Regarding Section 307, the Court held that the number, nature, and location of the injuries demonstrated a "sustained and determined assault," overriding the need for a deep-seated motive.

The Court further addressed a sentencing discrepancy: while the trial court failed to impose a mandatory fine alongside the imprisonment term, the High Court observed that in an appeal filed solely by the convict, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence due to the absence of a cross-appeal by the State.

Key Observations

  • "Where, in addition, the witness is the injured victim herself, her testimony carries a built-in guarantee of truthfulness and, ordinarily, requires no further corroboration."
  • "Failure to prove motive is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case where the occurrence is otherwise established by cogent direct evidence ."
  • "The wounds on the palms and fingers of the victim are consistent with defensive injuries sustained while warding off the blows, indicative of a sustained and determined assault."

Final Verdict

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding both the conviction and the original sentences concurrently. The appellant, who had been on bail, was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining period of his incarceration. The judgment reinforces the weight placed on injured testimony in criminal trials, setting a clear standard for the assessment of victim accounts in cases of physical assault.