Court Must Sift Grain From Chaff; Mere Acquittal Of Co-Accused Does Not Dilute Cogent Eyewitness Testimony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction For Fatal Knife Attack

Minor Inconsistency In FIR No Ground To Discard Reliable Eyewitness Account - Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the conviction of Vinod Kumar for the murder of Prem Chand in a brutal knife attack, rejecting his appeal against the trial court’s 2004 judgment. The Division Bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that “acquittal of a co-accused does not, by itself, vitiate the testimony of eyewitnesses when their accounts stand corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.”

The case revolved around an incident dated December 20, 2001, where the appellant was accused of stabbing his neighbour Prem Chand in a sudden act of violence triggered by a previous altercation. The victim’s son, Gulshan Kumar, who was also injured, was an eyewitness to the crime along with his mother and brother. The trial court had convicted Vinod Kumar under Sections 302, 323, and 324 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, while acquitting co-accused Bhim Singh.

Eyewitness Account Supported By Medical Evidence And Weapon Recovery
The case stemmed from FIR No. 435 of 2001, registered at PS City Bhiwani. As per the complainant Gulshan Kumar’s prompt statement, “Vinod took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow with the same on the right side of the chest of my father and inflicted another blow on his right shoulder… thereafter fled from the spot with the knife.” The victim was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead.

The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses—Gulshan Kumar (PW-3), the victim’s wife Lilawati (PW-6), and son Anil Kumar (PW-7)—whose testimonies consistently attributed the fatal knife blows to Vinod Kumar. The medical officer Dr. Naresh Garg (PW-5) confirmed three incised wounds, including one penetrating the chest and cutting the arch of the aorta, leading to death by hemorrhagic shock.

The knife used in the murder was recovered at the appellant’s instance and was found stained with blood, corroborating the prosecution version.

The defence challenged the conviction on the ground that the complainant did not name the co-accused Bhim Singh in the FIR and that the later reference amounted to a material improvement. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that: “Acquittal of Bhim Singh while giving benefit of doubt as evidence regarding his presence was found doubtful cannot be interpreted to mean that entire evidence is to be treated as doubtful.”

The Court reaffirmed that the primary prosecution story against Vinod Kumar was fully consistent, adding: “The testimonies of the three eye-witnesses, whose presence would be natural inasmuch they are members of the same family, is also borne out from medical evidence.”

Importantly, the Court reiterated that where evidence can be partially relied upon, courts must act as “filters, not sieves”: “It is the duty of the Court to sift grain from chaff and that any piece of evidence, which is found to be doubtful may not be relied upon while the remaining can safely be relied upon particularly if there is other corroborative evidence.”

Knife Recovery, Medical Corroboration Sealed The Case
The post-mortem report (Ex. PE) revealed sharp weapon injuries matching the nature of the attack narrated by eyewitnesses. The chemical analysis report confirmed blood stains on the recovered knife. The medical examination of other injured witnesses further fortified the credibility of their presence and version.

The Court concluded: “There is nothing on record to impeach the credibility of any of the witnesses or to doubt the case of the prosecution on any count.”

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment and ordered the re-arrest of the appellant to serve the remainder of his life sentence.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2025