#sole testimony

Jharkhand High Court rules that the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness can sustain a conviction under the Indian Penal Code, provided the testimony is credible and medical evidence supports it. This reinforces the principle that corroboration is not mandatory when the core evidence is trustworthy, impacting criminal prosecutions relying on ocular evidence.

Gauhati High Court rules that the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness, if credible and consistent, can sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC even in the absence of seizure evidence or corroboration from other witnesses. The judgment underscores that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate testimony if the core account remains unshaken, reinforcing the reliability of direct victim testimony in criminal trials.

Gauhati High Court rules that a minor victim's credible testimony alone can sustain a conviction under POCSO Act, even in the absence of physical evidence or medical injury. The judgment reinforces that lack of corroboration does not automatically vitiate the victim's account, setting a precedent for child sexual abuse cases where direct evidence is often scarce.

The Supreme Court ruled that a rape conviction under Section 376 IPC cannot stand on the victim's sole testimony alone if uncorroborated by medical or forensic evidence and marked by a delayed FIR. The judgment underscores the need for independent proof to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in sexual offence cases, impacting prosecutorial strategies and trial court evaluations.

Meghalaya High Court holds that sole testimony of a rape survivor, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction; delay in FIR and minor discrepancies do not undermine reliability.