"Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court

"Doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Not Applicable in India" —Allahabad High Court (Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi) dismissed a 36-year-old criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of Islam, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his paternal aunt. The Court held that “a reliable and trustworthy sole eyewitness whose testimony is corroborated by medical and recovery evidence is sufficient for conviction”, even if there are minor contradictions or the co-accused have been acquitted.

The judgment clarifies important criminal law principles regarding appreciation of evidence, the probative value of an eyewitness account, the effect of alleged delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate, and the inapplicability of the falsus in uno principle in Indian jurisprudence.

“Minor Contradictions Do Not Undermine Credibility Where Core of Prosecution Case Is Consistent”

Rejecting the plea that the FIR was ante-timed, the Court held that mere delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate does not invalidate its authenticity, particularly where its registration and dispatch were duly recorded in the General Diary and supported by testimony of the Investigating Officer. Citing Subash and Shiv Shankar v. State of U.P., the Court held:

“There are no materials to warrant an inference that the FIR had been given later but antedated to cover up delay in making the report... It is true that the FIR sent to court does not contain the Magistrate’s endorsement regarding the time of its receipt, but the General Diary contains an entry to that effect.”

Further rejecting the argument regarding inconsistencies in the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station as recorded in the FIR and inquest report, the Court held such variances too insignificant to suggest fabrication or ante-timing.

“Presence of Bone-Cut Injuries Rules Out Blunt Weapon; Admission by Doctor Rectifies Classification Error”

One of the central defences raised was the alleged mismatch between the injuries noted in the post-mortem and the eyewitness account, especially since the post-mortem report originally described the wounds as ‘lacerated’ — typically caused by blunt force — while the prosecution case involved an axe (a sharp-edged weapon).

However, in an important clarification, the doctor conducting the autopsy (PW-3) admitted during court questioning that the injuries had been misclassified and that they were in fact incised wounds with underlying bone cuts, which could have only been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe. The Court observed:

“An incised wound with bone cuts can be caused only by a sharp weapon. In light of the admission by PW-3, the medical evidence corroborates the injuries as testified by the eyewitness and proves the use of axe in homicide.”

The axe recovered near the body was found to be stained with human blood, further supporting the prosecution case.

“Sole Eyewitness (PW-1) Was Reliable – No Motive Required Where Direct Evidence Exists”

The prosecution relied on the testimony of Shareef Ahmad (PW-1), an eyewitness and the first informant. Despite defence allegations of inconsistency between the FIR and PW-1’s courtroom statement (particularly regarding the number of blows and presence of other accused), the High Court relied on the principles laid down in Rajan v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952):

“An eyewitness is not expected to possess a photographic memory… Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case cannot be grounds for rejection of testimony.”

The Court noted that PW-1’s version remained consistent on material aspects: that the appellant Islam assaulted the deceased with an axe, resulting in fatal injuries. PW-2, another witness, though alleged to be a "chance witness", also supported the prosecution version, though the Court clarified that even if PW-2's testimony was ignored, PW-1’s reliable and corroborated account was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

“The sole testimony of PW-1 proves the prosecution case beyond doubt.”

As for motive, the Court reiterated that direct eyewitness evidence reduces the relevance of motive:

“Even otherwise, presence of direct eye-witness renders motive non-essential.”

“Acquittal of Co-Accused Does Not Weaken the Case Against Main Assailant”

The defence argued that since the co-accused were acquitted and PW-1’s testimony was not fully relied upon by the trial court in their case, the appellant should also be acquitted. The Court emphatically rejected this contention, holding:

“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India... Even if major portions of evidence are found deficient, if the remaining part is sufficient to prove guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained.”

Citing Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 366), the Court reiterated that this maxim is a mere rule of caution and not a rule of law.

“A faulty investigation or error in naming other accused does not negate credible direct evidence against the principal accused.”

Conviction Affirmed, Appellant to Surrender by 25th February 2026

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s findings and refused to interfere with the lower court’s assessment of witness demeanor, holding that:

“We do not find sufficient reason to interfere in the findings of the trial court which also had the opportunity to watch the demeanor of the witness.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The Court directed the appellant to surrender by 25th February 2026 to serve the remaining sentence. If he fails to do so, the trial court was instructed to initiate appropriate proceedings.

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026