#eyewitness testimony

The Supreme Court ruled that a lone eyewitness who is a close relative is not per se an interested witness and can alone satisfy the evidential burden for a Section 302 IPC murder conviction; a delayed FIR is not fatal if explained. This guides prosecutors and defence in homicide trials.

Patna High Court affirmed life imprisonment for murder based on a single reliable eyewitness, while quashing the SC/ST Act conviction for lacking proof of a caste motive and reducing the Arms Act sentence, underscoring stricter evidentiary standards for both murder and atrocity charges.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that motor accident claims require proof only on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, aligning with social welfare legislation. The court set aside the MACT’s dismissal and awarded ₹18.95 lakh to the dependents of a deceased police constable, emphasizing the lower standard of proof in civil negligence cases.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC can stand on the strength of unimpeachable eyewitness testimony and medical evidence alone, even if motive is not established. This reinforces the primacy of direct ocular evidence in criminal trials, setting a precedent for prosecutors and defence counsel in cases lacking clear motive.

Jharkhand High Court sets aside convictions in a double murder case, ruling that a Section 164 CrPC statement lacking inculpatory content and voluntary recording cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The judgment underscores that uncorroborated eyewitness accounts and stale evidence fail to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.

Allahabad High Court acquitted accused in a murder case, ruling that prosecution witnesses' contradictions, unexplained FIR delay, and failure to subject testimony to rigorous cross-examination failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces that eyewitness accounts alone are insufficient without corroboration and procedural compliance.

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 Jharkhand High Court reduced a five-year sentence to time served after a 20-year trial delay, affirming that prolonged judicial inaction can justify proportionate sentencing even in serious culpable homicide cases. This sets a critical precedent for courts to weigh delay as a mitigating factor in sentencing, particularly for accused with clean records and no flight risk.

The Jharkhand High Court acquits two accused under Section 307 IPC when medical evidence contradicted the victim’s claim of stone assault, holding that Section 34 cannot extend collective liability without proof of active, intentional involvement. This ruling sharpens the threshold for common intention in violent offenses, protecting bystanders from vicarious criminal liability.

Karnataka High Court grants bail to an accused under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) where the charge sheet lacks direct allegations and eyewitnesses fail to identify the petitioner. The ruling reinforces that bail cannot be denied merely on association with co-accused without substantive evidence linking the accused to the crime.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that bail must be granted under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when prosecution eyewitnesses do not support allegations against the accused. The judgment underscores that pre-trial detention cannot be justified solely on police statements if trial witnesses exonerate the accused.

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.

Allahabad HC ruled that fractures of ribs and limbs, even without sharp weapon injuries, can sustain a murder conviction under Section 302/149 IPC if the injuries are ordinarily sufficient to cause death. The court emphasized that eyewitness testimony alone can uphold such convictions, reinforcing the principle that the nature of injuries-not the weapon-determines culpability.

Bombay HC affirms that a dying declaration and eyewitness testimony can sustain a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, even if weapon recovery is delayed or procedural irregularities exist. The ruling reinforces that corroborative evidence need not be flawless to uphold guilt in homicide cases.

The Bombay High Court has granted leave to appeal against an acquittal in a grievous hurt case, holding that consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence establishing fracture and surgical intervention constitute sufficient grounds for appellate review. This reinforces that acquittals cannot stand where credible, corroborated evidence of serious bodily harm exists, even if the trial court erred in its evaluation.