#eyewitness credibility

Kerala High Court rules that conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on eyewitness testimony if it is reliable and unimpeached, even without corroborative evidence like motive or independent witnesses. The judgment reinforces that direct evidence, when trustworthy, can independently establish guilt in murder cases.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that conviction under Section 304A IPC cannot rest solely on eyewitness accounts of high speed or vague allegations; the prosecution must establish both the accused’s identity as the driver and the rash or negligent nature of driving through credible, corroborated evidence. This sets a critical precedent for road accident prosecutions, raising the bar for circumstantial proof in cases lacking forensic or documentary support.

Karnataka High Court grants bail under Section 483 BNSS, holding that continued detention violates personal liberty when key eyewitnesses fail to support the prosecution's case. The ruling reinforces that bail is not punitive and must be granted where evidence disintegrates, setting a precedent for similar cases under the new criminal laws.

Allahabad HC alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC, citing sudden provocation in a fruit cart dispute. The ruling reduces the sentence to time already served, emphasizing proportionality in sentencing where intent to kill is mitigated by immediate provocation.

Karnataka High Court rules that eyewitness testimony from relatives of the deceased is valid under Sections 279 and 304A IPC if found credible and uncontradicted, even without corroboration. The accused's silence during Section 313 CrPC examination further strengthened the prosecution's case, setting a precedent for traffic accident convictions based on interested witness accounts.

Bombay HC ruled that delayed photo identification of a convict after five years in custody undermines evidentiary sanctity, creating reasonable doubt. The court granted bail pending appeal, emphasizing the fragility of eyewitness credibility in prolonged incarceration cases, setting a precedent for identification evidence reliability in criminal jurisprudence.

Uttarakhand High Court sets aside convictions under Sections 302, 307 IPC, and Arms Act after finding eyewitness accounts contradictory and confessions inadmissible. The ruling underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence in criminal trials, impacting prosecutorial strategies in cases relying on testimonial evidence.

Bombay HC underscores that conviction under Section 149 IPC requires unequivocal proof of both unlawful assembly and common object. Inconsistent eyewitness testimony and procedural lapses led to acquittal, reaffirming the prosecution's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in group liability cases.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that injury alone is insufficient to establish causation in motor accident claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The absence of an FIR or Daily Diary Report (DDR) and inconsistent eyewitness testimony led to the dismissal of the claim, reinforcing the need for contemporaneous police records to prove negligence and liability.

Gujarat High Court upholds acquittal in communal violence case, emphasizing that appellate courts must not interfere unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Calcutta High Court acquits petitioner under Section 326 IPC, holding that inconsistent witness testimony and lack of exclusive attribution negate proof beyond reasonable doubt.