Testimony Must Be Of Sterling Quality To Sustain Murder Conviction: Orissa High Court Acquits Two Life Convicts In 24-Year-Old Case

"P.W.10’s Testimony Falls Short Of The ‘Sterling Witness’ Standard As Defined By The Supreme Court", In a judgment that reaffirms the foundational principle that criminal convictions must rest on unimpeachable and credible evidence, the Orissa High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by two men convicted for murder in 2001, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphatically ruled that “where conviction is based solely on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, such testimony must be of ‘sterling quality’ — natural, consistent and wholly reliable — a standard not met in the present case.”

Delivering its verdict in Laxmidhar Swain & Titu @ Deepak Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha, a Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash reversed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, set aside the sentence of life imprisonment, and directed that the appellants be released from all liabilities arising out of the case.

The Court held: “The prosecution has failed to establish, by reliable and cogent evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, the guilt of the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence on record suffers from material inconsistencies and infirmities, which go to the root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to sustain the conviction.”

"Solitary Eyewitness Must Inspire Confidence: Court Cites Rai Sandeep Judgment"

The core legal issue in the appeal was whether the testimony of P.W.10 – the only purported eyewitness – could sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of corroboration. The Court drew extensively from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21], which defines the attributes of a "sterling witness".

Quoting the judgment, the Bench noted:

“The ‘sterling witness’ should be of very high quality and calibre... such a witness can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration... The version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other supporting materials... should match the said version in material particulars.”

Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the version of P.W.10 could not meet this threshold. His testimony was “neither consistent nor natural”, and was marred by delays, contradictions, and lack of corroboration.

Factual Matrix: Murder Based On Enmity Allegations, Political Rivalry

The case arose out of an alleged murder that took place on the night of October 19, 1998, in Cuttack district. The deceased, Surendra @ Sura Mulia, was found with multiple injuries near a river embankment. The prosecution claimed that the appellants, along with others, chased and killed the deceased due to political rivalry.

The conviction by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2001 was largely based on the deposition of P.W.10, who claimed to have witnessed the brutal assault using sharp weapons. However, the High Court found his presence at the scene doubtful.

Significantly, P.W.10's statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded one and a half days after the incident, despite his availability and absence of any threat. “The delay in examination of a key eyewitness who was present in the village throughout, and had supposedly narrated the incident to others, remains wholly unexplained,” the Court remarked.

The High Court cited State of Orissa v. Brahmananda Nanda [AIR 1976 SC 2488] to reiterate that such unexplained delay in disclosing the identity of the assailants to the police renders the testimony unreliable.

Contradictions and Inconsistencies Render P.W.10's Testimony Unreliable

The Court was critical of the internal contradictions between the statements of P.W.10 and those of P.W.4 (the informant) and P.W.11. Particularly, P.W.4 had deposed that on reaching the spot, both P.W.10 and P.W.11 expressed ignorance about the incident, which is inconsistent with P.W.10’s later claim of having witnessed the murder.

The Court held:

“The contradictions between the versions of P.W.10 and P.W.11 regarding the disclosure of the occurrence create serious doubt about P.W.10’s presence at the spot. In the absence of any contemporaneous disclosure by P.W.10 to the police or family members, his credibility is severely impaired.”

Further, the Court invoked Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (res gestae) to hold that the spontaneous statements of P.W.10 to P.W.4 at the scene of occurrence, wherein he claimed ignorance, are admissible and undermine his claim of being an eyewitness.

Extra-Judicial Confession Not Credible – ‘A Weak Type of Evidence’

Another pillar of the prosecution case was an alleged extra-judicial confession made by one of the accused to P.W.14. The Court rejected this too, reiterating the well-established principle that such confessions are inherently weak and require strict scrutiny.

Citing Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 705], the High Court noted:

“Unless fully corroborated by clinching evidence, an extra-judicial confession is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. The prosecution failed to establish any prior relationship between the accused and P.W.14 to justify such confidence being reposed. Moreover, there is no explanation as to how the police discovered this alleged confession or traced the witness.”

Seizure of Blood-Stained Shirt and Weapon Recovery Dubious

The Court also rejected the seizure of a blood-stained shirt allegedly belonging to one of the accused. The seizure witness (P.W.12) admitted during cross-examination that the police merely showed him the shirt, and he did not know where or how it was recovered. Moreover, the chemical examiner’s report failed to establish that the blood on the shirt matched that of the deceased.

The alleged recovery of the weapon of offence (Bhujali) was also found to be unconvincing due to lack of forensic linkage and procedural irregularities.

“The C.E. Report does not disclose the blood group detected on the seized article. In absence of such scientific corroboration, the mere recovery of a blood-stained article cannot advance the prosecution case,” the Court held.

Benefit of Doubt Must Go to Accused in Murder Trial

Summing up the flaws in the prosecution case, the High Court held that while the death was clearly homicidal, the connection between the crime and the appellants had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

“Considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused persons, the scrutiny of evidence must necessarily be more rigorous... In the present case, the testimony of P.W.10 does not satisfy the essential requirements of being reliable, consistent and corroborated. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as sufficient to sustain the conviction on its own.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.02.2001, acquitted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, and discharged their bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 23rd December 2025