Conviction Can Rest on a Single Witness If He Speaks the Truth: P&H High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Chilling Acid Attack Murder

“Where the testimony of a lone eyewitness is natural, unshaken, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, it stands on solid ground,” ruled the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the life imprisonment of Rajni, convicted for a brutal acid attack that claimed the life of 18-year-old Sunil Rawat.

The case, which lay pending in appellate jurisdiction for over two decades, revolved around the murder committed in 2002. The Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi dismissed the appeal filed in 2004, terming the prosecution’s case “rock solid” and driven by “clear, corroborated evidence that leaves no room for reasonable doubt.”

The horrifying crime occurred on April 7, 2002, when Rajni, allegedly seeking revenge after being dismissed from a job by the victim’s brother-in-law, lured Sunil into a Maruti van with the help of three accomplices. Once inside, sulphuric acid was poured over Sunil, who was then thrown from the vehicle in a burnt and dying state. He staggered into a nearby hospital but succumbed to his injuries shortly after. The postmortem and forensic reports confirmed the cause of death as chemical burns, and sulphuric acid was traced not only on the victim’s clothes but also on the seat of the vehicle and the clothing recovered from Rajni and her co-accused.

Crucially, the case rested primarily on the testimony of Sanjay Rawat, the deceased’s teenage brother who witnessed the abduction and the acid attack unfold. Sanjay, who was 16 at the time, chased the van on a motorcycle and later gave a detailed, prompt statement to the police.

“His testimony is cogent, credible, and inspires full confidence. The FIR was lodged promptly, with all material details intact,” the Court said. It noted that the witness had no reason to falsely implicate Rajni, and his version was corroborated by multiple layers of medical and forensic evidence.

The defence had attacked the credibility of Sanjay Rawat, arguing that he was an interested witness and that no independent corroboration existed. They also raised objections to the absence of a test identification parade (TIP) and claimed no motive was established.

But the Bench was unmoved. “Rajni was well known to the complainant. A TIP becomes unnecessary when the accused is named in the FIR and known to the eyewitness,” observed the Court. As for the alleged absence of motive, the judges reiterated a settled principle: “When direct evidence is strong, motive assumes a secondary role.”

The Court also dismissed the argument that the 23-year delay in appeal hearing prejudiced the case, stating bluntly that “Delay alone does not vitiate conviction, especially when evidence is cogent and consistent.”

The role of forensic evidence proved pivotal. Sulphuric acid traces were found on clothing worn by the accused, and on the vehicle’s back seat. The recovery of the acid bottle and the scorched seat cover matched the witness's description of events, reinforcing the prosecution’s version. “Even a month after the attack, sulphuric acid traces were found on the seat, affirming the authenticity of the crime scene,” the judgment recorded.

Citing precedents including Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reaffirmed that a single, trustworthy witness could be sufficient to establish guilt. “Merely because only one witness remains does not erode the strength of his testimony when it is trustworthy and corroborated,” the Court ruled.

Rajni, along with her co-accused Rakesh Kumar, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court in Kurukshetra in February 2004. Their appeal, lying in cold storage for years, has now concluded with the High Court’s resounding affirmation.

“This was not a case of mistaken identity or false implication. It was a cold, calculated act of revenge,” the Court remarked.

The appeal thus stood dismissed. The sentence, affirmed. And the law, as the Court emphatically reminded, stood upheld — that “truth from a single mouth, when corroborated by science, is enough to condemn.”

Date of Decision: 2 May 2025