The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that a conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest squarely on the testimony of a single, reliable eye-witness, provided it is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. This judgment underscores that the quality of evidence, not its quantity, determines guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The accused-appellant, Virender Kumar, was charged with the intentional murder of Sanjay Kumar on 29.11.2020 in an agricultural field near Chak 10 GB Dhani, Police Station Jaitsar, District Sri Ganganagar. The prosecution alleged that Virender Kumar, armed with an unlicensed 12-bore country-made pistol, shot Sanjay Kumar in the back at close range while both were collecting green fodder. The incident followed prior altercations between the families of the accused and the deceased.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Sanjay Kumar, was shot at approximately 4:30 PM on 29.11.2020 while returning from the field with bundles of green fodder.
- His son, Mohit Kumar (PW-2), was walking ahead and heard the gunshot, turned back, and witnessed the accused firing the shot.
- Two other witnesses, Shiv Kumar (PW-3) and Dinesh Kumar (PW-4), heard the gunshot from nearby fields, rushed to the spot, saw the accused fleeing, and confirmed Mohit Kumar’s account.
- The complainant, Pramod Kumar (PW-1), received a telephonic call about the incident and arrived at the scene to find the body.
- A 12-bore country-made pistol and one empty cartridge were recovered from the accused’s residence on 05.12.2020 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, following his voluntary disclosure.
- The recovered weapon was identified as serviceable and had been fired recently, as confirmed by barrel residue analysis.
- The post-mortem report (Ex.P-25) dated 30.11.2020 revealed a bullet entry wound on the back of the deceased with blackening, indicating close-range firing.
- Blood samples from the deceased’s clothing and the crime scene matched blood group "B" (Ex.P-40).
- No gunpowder residue was detected on the deceased’s T-shirt and baniyan (S/1 and S/2), but lead metal was found around the bullet holes.
- The ballistic report (Ex.P-53) concluded that the recovered cartridge case (C/1) was fired from the recovered pistol, though the slug "could have been fired" from it.
- The accused’s sister, Jugna Devi (DW-1), testified that he was not present at the scene and that the killing was carried out by an unknown person.
Procedural History
- 29.11.2020: Incident occurred at approximately 4:30 PM.
- 29.11.2020: Written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by PW-1 at Police Station Jaitsar.
- 29.11.2020: FIR No.289/2020 registered under Section 302 IPC.
- 05.12.2020: Recovery of 12-bore pistol and empty cartridge from accused’s residence.
- 18.01.2021: Charge-sheet filed before Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar.
- 05.02.2021: Case committed to Court of Sessions.
- 10.03.2021: Case transferred to Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Raisinghnagar.
- 13.11.2024: Trial court convicted accused under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act; sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000 (and one year additional RI in default), five years SI with fine of Rs.5,000 (and six months additional SI in default), and seven years SI with fine of Rs.10,000 (and eight months additional SI in default).
- 18.05.2026: Final arguments concluded before the Division Bench.
- 20.05.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: Argued that the sole eye-witness, Mohit Kumar, did not actually see the firing; that the recovery was fabricated; that the ballistic report was inconclusive; that gunpowder residue was absent; and that motive was unproven. Contended that the defence witness’s testimony created reasonable doubt.
For the Respondent: Maintained that the prosecution case was fully corroborated by multiple witnesses, medical evidence, forensic reports, and recovery of the weapon. Asserted that the trial court’s findings were well-reasoned and supported by the record.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on all charges, arguing that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence and that the sentence was excessive. The State sought dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the trial court’s judgment.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act be sustained solely on the testimony of one eye-witness, when corroborated by medical evidence, forensic linkage of the weapon, and recovery of the firearm from the accused, despite the absence of gunpowder residue and an inconclusive ballistic opinion on the slug?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the testimony of PW-2 Mohit Kumar was unreliable because he did not directly observe the firing, only turned back after hearing the shot. It was argued that the recovery of the weapon was fabricated, as no independent corroboration existed beyond the police report. The ballistic report (Ex.P-53) was challenged for using speculative language ("could have been fired") and for failing to establish the time of last firing. The absence of gunpowder residue on the deceased’s clothing was submitted as proof that the firing was not at close range. The defence witness, Jugna Devi, was said to have created a reasonable doubt about the accused’s presence. It was further argued that the prior enmity had been resolved, negating motive.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the ocular testimony of PW-2 was consistent, credible, and unshaken under cross-examination. The testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, who heard the shot and saw the accused fleeing, provided natural corroboration. The post-mortem report confirmed a close-range entry wound with blackening, aligning with the eye-witness account. The recovery of the weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was valid and independently witnessed. The ballistic report conclusively linked the recovered cartridge case to the pistol. The absence of gunpowder residue was explained by environmental and fabric factors. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi was cited to affirm that a single reliable witness can sustain conviction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence and found no merit in the appellant’s contentions. The testimony of PW-2 Mohit Kumar, though that of a sole eye-witness, was held to be clear, natural, and consistent throughout cross-examination. The Court emphasized that relationship to the deceased does not render testimony suspect, particularly where no motive to falsely implicate exists.
"His testimony inspires full confidence of this Court and there exists no legal impediment in basing conviction on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, provided the same is found wholly reliable."
The Court found substantial corroboration in the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, who independently confirmed hearing the gunshot and seeing the accused flee. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-25) confirmed a bullet entry wound on the back with blackening, conclusively establishing close-range firing, which directly supported the eye-witness account.
The recovery of the 12-bore pistol and empty cartridge from the accused’s residence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was held to be credible, as it was witnessed by an independent person, PW-5 Rakesh Kumar, Sarpanch. The ballistic report (Ex.P-53) was interpreted not as inconclusive, but as sufficiently probative: while the slug’s origin was stated as "could have been fired," the cartridge case was definitively matched to the recovered pistol. The Court held that such a linkage, combined with the barrel residue indicating recent firing, was sufficient to establish the weapon’s use in the crime.
"Merely because the expert used the expression that the damaged slug 'could have been fired' from the recovered weapon does not dilute the evidentiary value of the report..."
The absence of gunpowder residue was dismissed as irrelevant, given the nature of the fabric, environmental conditions, and time elapsed. The Court noted that lead metal detection on the clothing confirmed projectile impact. The defence witness, Jugna Devi, was deemed an interested party whose testimony lacked corroboration and was contradicted by the medical evidence of close-range firing.
The Court also held that where direct, reliable ocular evidence exists, motive becomes secondary. The prior enmity between the families, established by multiple witnesses, was sufficient to support a plausible motive. The Court relied on Sunil Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi to affirm that evidence must be weighed, not counted, and that the test is whether it has a "ring of truth."
The Court concluded that the prosecution had established a complete, unbroken chain of evidence pointing unmistakably to the guilt of the accused, leaving no reasonable doubt.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction of Virender Kumar under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act was affirmed. The sentence of life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.50,000 (and one year additional rigorous imprisonment in default), five years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 (and six months additional simple imprisonment in default), and seven years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 (and eight months additional simple imprisonment in default), was upheld. The accused shall continue to undergo the sentence in custody. The trial court record was directed to be sent back forthwith with a copy of this judgment for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sole Eye-Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction
- Practitioners must argue that the reliability of a single eye-witness, not the number of witnesses, determines admissibility under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Courts will not reject testimony merely because the witness is a close relative of the deceased, provided it is consistent, unshaken, and corroborated.
- Cross-examination must be scrutinized for material contradictions - minor inconsistencies do not invalidate credible testimony.
Forensic and Medical Evidence Trumps Technical Gaps
- Absence of gunpowder residue does not negate close-range firing if other indicators (e.g., blackening, lead metal, trajectory) support it.
- Ballistic reports using cautious language like "could have been fired" remain admissible if other components (e.g., cartridge case matching) are conclusive.
- Recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, if independently witnessed, constitutes a powerful incriminating circumstance.
Motive Is Secondary Where Direct Evidence Exists
- In cases with clear ocular and forensic evidence, absence of motive cannot create reasonable doubt.
- Prior enmity, even if partially resolved, may still serve as a plausible motive if supported by contemporaneous testimony.
- Defence theories relying on unknown assailants must be supported by independent evidence - unsupported speculation will be rejected.
