The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest squarely on the credible ocular testimony of a single witness, provided it is corroborated by medical evidence and reinforced by spontaneous statements made during the immediate aftermath of the crime. This judgment underscores the primacy of direct evidence over technical discrepancies in forensic reports.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Chathu, was convicted for the murder of Vasu, his neighbor, on 18 March 2010, following a violent altercation over a long-standing property dispute. The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked Vasu with a billhook in the early morning while Vasu was collecting cashew nuts from their shared property. The motive stemmed from a prior civil suit in which the appellant had lost title to the property, only to have the decree later set aside in his favor by the High Court - yet tensions persisted.
Procedural History
- 18 March 2010: Murder of Vasu at the property site; Crime No.199/2010 registered at Panoor Police Station.
- 2011: Case committed to Sessions Court after investigation; charges framed under Section 302 IPC.
- 28 March 2019: Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000.
- 2019: Criminal Appeal filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the conviction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal or reduction of sentence, arguing that the prosecution’s case relied on an unreliable eyewitness, inconsistent forensic evidence, and that his actions constituted lawful private defence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on the ocular testimony of a single witness, when supported by a dying declaration and statements admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, despite discrepancies in blood group analysis.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the conviction was unsafe due to: (1) material inconsistencies between the First Information Report (FIR) by PW1 and the testimony of PW2, the deceased’s daughter; (2) conflicting blood group reports - postmortem (O+) versus chemical analysis (B+) - which undermined the chain of evidence; and (3) the appellant’s claim of private defence, citing prior aggression by the deceased and his own injuries. Reliance was placed on Latel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Periyasamy v. State to argue that the appellant acted in self-defence.
For the Respondent
The State countered that PW2’s testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by three other eyewitnesses and the postmortem report. The blood group discrepancy was explained by the medical expert as contamination due to improper handling of wet clothing, a known phenomenon in forensic science. The State emphasized that the appellant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC admitted no injury to himself and portrayed the deceased as the lawful possessor of the property, negating any claim of aggression. The dying declaration and res gestae statements were legally valid and integral to the prosecution’s case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, focusing on the quality of PW2’s testimony. It held that the trial court correctly treated PW2 as a sterling witness, whose version remained unshaken under cross-examination and aligned with medical findings, recovery of the weapon, and corroborative testimonies. The Court cited Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) to affirm that the credibility of a witness is determined by truthfulness and consistency, not status or number.
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable."
The Court further held that the deceased’s dying declaration - "It was the accused who inflicted injuries on me" - and PW2’s contemporaneous statement to PW3 were admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the res gestae. The Court relied on Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P. and Sukhar v. State of U.P. to conclude that these statements were spontaneous, made in immediate proximity to the act, and left no room for fabrication.
Regarding the blood group discrepancy, the Court accepted the expert testimony of PW16, who explained that wet clothing packed without drying could lead to bacterial contamination, producing false agglutinogens. The Court noted that the trial court had already addressed this in detail, and that the prosecution’s case did not rest on circumstantial evidence but on direct ocular testimony. The Court emphasized:
"The said circumstance of change of blood group... is not at all fatal to the case in hand because, in this case the court is relying on direct ocular version regarding the incident and not on any circumstantial evidence."
The claim of private defence was rejected outright. The appellant produced no medical evidence of injury, no witness to support his version of aggression, and his own statement under Section 313 CrPC indicated he was merely protecting property - not life - against a trespasser, which does not justify lethal force under Section 96-106 IPC.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming that a conviction can be based on the credible ocular testimony of a single witness, reinforced by a dying declaration and res gestae statements, even in the presence of non-fatal forensic inconsistencies. The sentence of life imprisonment and fine was confirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Ocular Evidence Can Stand Alone
- Practitioners must prioritize the credibility, consistency, and corroboration of eyewitnesses over technical forensic gaps.
- A single credible witness, especially a close relative present at the scene, can sustain a murder conviction if their testimony withstands scrutiny and aligns with medical evidence.
- Courts will not require multiple eyewitnesses if the testimony meets the "sterling witness" standard.
Dying Declarations and Res Gestae Are Powerful Tools
- Statements made by the deceased to a close relative immediately before death qualify as admissible dying declarations under Section 32.
- Spontaneous exclamations by the victim or witness during or immediately after the crime are admissible under Section 6 as res gestae, even if hearsay.
- Defence counsel must challenge the timing and spontaneity of such statements - not their content - to undermine them.
Forensic Discrepancies Are Not Fatal to Direct Evidence
- Blood group mismatches due to improper sample handling are common and explainable.
- Prosecutors must proactively present authoritative forensic literature (e.g., Guharaj, Lundquist) to explain anomalies.
- When direct evidence is strong, courts will not overturn convictions based on non-material scientific inconsistencies.
