Holding

A conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of a sole reliable eye‑witness, and investigation deficiencies or alleged procedural irregularities do not invalidate the judgment when the material facts are proved.

Summary

Mahendra Singh and his co‑accused Harbhajan Singh were convicted for the murder of Avtar Singh, the son of complainant Kanto Bai, after a dispute over a borrowed bull. The mother, Kanto Bai, was the sole eye‑witness and her testimony was corroborated by the post‑mortem report. The appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds, including alleged ante‑dating of the FIR, the non‑seizure of the victim's chappal and the mother’s blood‑stained clothes, the presence of digested food in the deceased’s stomach, and the alleged lack of motive. The Supreme Court held that a conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole reliable eye‑witness and that deficiencies in investigation do not preclude a finding of guilt when the material facts are proved. The Court dismissed the claim that the FIR date error was material, found the food evidence consistent with the timeline, and ruled that motive is not essential for a murder conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC were upheld.

Issues considered

The reliability of the sole eye‑witness testimony of the mother (PW‑1).
Whether the alleged ante‑dating of the FIR defeats the prosecution case.
The impact of non‑seizure of the victim’s chappal and the mother’s blood‑stained clothes on the evidentiary value.
The significance of digested food found in the deceased’s stomach concerning the time of death.
The relevance of motive in establishing guilt for murder under IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 324, s. 34

Subjects

murdersole eyewitness testimonyinvestigation deficiencyFIR datemotiveIPC 302IPC 324evidencepost‑mortem

Judgment

A MAHENDRA SINGH ,.
v.
STATEOFM.P.

APRIL 5, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

....--
Penal Code, I 860:

Ss. 302132-Deceased was attacked in the presence of mother PW-I-
c Her evidence corroborated by tho; post mortem t.eport~Hence PWI was
reliable witness and conviction can be based on her evidence-Non-seizure
of Chappa/ and blood stained clothes of PW-I-Held, would not be fatal to
prosecution case as deficiency in investigation would not stand in way of
..
Court at finding of guilt if it is otherwise proved-Evidence-Sole eye-
witness-Criminal trial-Deficiency in investigation. .>
D
Prosecution case was that the parties were related to each other. The
.....
appellant-accused had borrowed the bull belonging to the complainant (PW-
1) for carrying fodder. When PW-1 and her son '.A' went to take it back,
appellant and his co-accused 'H' refused to return it Both 'A' and PW-I went
E to the hut of accused persons and tried the take the bull quietly whereupon
appellant and 'H' came from behind and. assaulted 'A' with .'bake' and 'luhangi'.
'A' died on spot. Trial court relied upoq the testimony of PW-1.and convicted
accused persons u·nder ss.302/34 and 324/34 IPC. The High Court while
upholding the conviction of the appellant, found the said 'H' guilty only under
s.304 s.304 Part I IPC. Hence the present appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court ~

HELD: 1. Nothing has been pointed to discredit testimony of PW-1. Her
demeanour has been noticed by the Trial Judge. She demonstrated as to how
and in what manner the accused persons killed her son and how she tried to
G save him from repeated assault on him with sharp weapons. She, in· her
statement, fully supported the contents of the First Information Report.
According to her, the police came at the spot in a jeep at about 10 a.m. and
__..
recorded her statement. Therefore, PW-1 was a reliable witness. Her · -...
evidence, was also corroborated by the post mortem report which was proved
H 892
MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 893

:/
by PW-4. [Para 101 [896-B-CJ A
2. It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be based
on the testimony ofa sole eye-witness. (Para 11] [896-H; 897-A]

Ramji Surjya Padvi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (19831 3 SCC
629; Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, [19931 3 SCC 282 and Sewaka Alis B
Ramsewak v. State of M. P. and Anr., [2001) 10 SCC 1, relied on.

3.1. It may be true that the chappal and blood stained clothes of PW-1
were not seized but it is also well-known that deficiency in investigation shall
not stand in the way of the court in arriving at a finding of guilt if it is
otherwise found to have been proved. So far as the contention that the First C
Information Report was ante-timed, there is no reason to accept the same.
Occurrence bad taken place on 27.06.1995 in the morning. All material
witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer on that very day. The
post mortem examination was also held at 3 p.m. on that day. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, therefore, as has rightly been found by the Trial Judge as also D
the High Court, merely made a mistake in putting the date as 26.06.1995
instead of27.06.1995. [Paras 12, 13 and 14) (897-B-D]

Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCALE 186 and
Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State ofKera/a, (2006) 13 SCALE
'"' 600, relied on. E
3.2. The very fact that some digested food was found in the stomach of
the deceased, the same by itself was sufficient to show that he had taken food
only in the morning of that date, i.e., within four hours from his death. Even
if he had taken some food, the same may not be within the knowledge of
PW-1. [Para 15) (897-EJ F
4. Absence of motive is also not a relevant factor in this case. The reason
for the appellant doing away with the deceased is evident He had taken back
the bull without the consent of the accused persons. They must have become
enraged because of the said act of the deceased and his mother. [897-F)
. [Para 161 G

5. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
If the motive as assigned by the prosecution as against the appellant and the
said 'H' for commission of the said offence was not correct, nothing has been
shown as to why despite such close relationship between the parties, they would H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A be falsely implicated. [Para 171 [897-H; 898-AJ
. CRIMINAL APPBLLATE'JORISDICTION : CriminaLAppeal No. 486 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2004 of the High Court of
B Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 459
of 1998. · ··

R.C Kohli (SCLSC) for the Appellant.
Vibha Da,tta Makhija for the Respodent.
. ·'' ~ '
c
'

The Judgment of the Court was delive!'ed by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.
D 3. ·Sole appellant .is before us ql!estioning the correctness of a judgment
of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh· in Criminal Appeal No.
459 of J 998. whereby and whereunder a judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the Ist Additional'Sessioris Jucige, 'Dabhr-a District dated 20.07 .1998
under Section 302/34 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed.
E
4. The parties are related to each other. Complainant Kanto Bai (PW-1)
had a bull. Appellant borrowed the same for carrying fodder. He did not return
it. Avtar Singh (deceased) - son of PW-1 - went to the hut of the accused
persons to take it back on 27.06.1995. Appellant and his co-accused named
Harbhajan Singh refused to part with it. The deceased requested his mother
F Kanto Bai (PW-1) to get the same whereupon both the deceased and PW-1
went to the hut of accused persons. They intended to bring it back without
informing the appellant. They found their bull grazing. They had been bringing
back the same quietly. Appellant and the said Harbhajan Singh carrying
'bake' and 'luhangi' respectively came behind them to the field of Ajit Singh.
They made an attempt to snatch the bull from the deceased. When. he
G resisted, the appellant is said to h~ve
assaulted him with bake and Harbhajan
Singh assaulted him by luhangi. PW-1 intervened and tried to save her son.
She fell on his body. She was pulled up by her hair. She started crying. The
..de~e.as~d Aytar .S.ingh. died. on the spot. The incident took place at about 8 ..... >
a.m. i~ the morning: .Ari inforinatiort in that behalf was received by the officer
H
MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. (S.B. SINHA, J.] 895

in-charge of the concerned police station. The police officer came to the spot, A
took the statement of PW-1. A First Infonnation Report was registered round
about 10.30 a.m. Both the accused persons were put on trial upon completion
of the investigation.

5. Before the learned Trial Judge, the appellant and Harbhajan Singh
pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the deposition of the witnesses B•
examined on behalf of prosecution, the appellant and the said Harbhajan
Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

6. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment, while upholding
the conviction of the appellant, found the said Harbhajan Singh guilty only C
under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to the
period already ·undergone by· hitn. .....

7. Both the .Trial Judge as also the· High Court in arriving at their
respective findings relied upon the testimony of the complainant PW-1.
D
- l 8. Mr. R.C. Kohli, learned counsel appearing ori behalf of the appellant,
would submit that the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court committed
a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take
into consideration that:

(i) the First Information Report was ante'-timed as the same was E
.
received by the Magistrate on 26.06.1995.
,

(ii) Although PW~l categorically stated that the deceased did not
take any food in the morning, some digested food was found in
the stomach of the deceased.
F
(iii) The chappal of the deceased as also the blood stained clothes
of PW-1 were not seized and, furthennore, the medical opinion in
relation to the injuries purported to have been received by PW-
1 being doubtful, her presence at the place of occurrence should
not have been accepted.
G
9. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. According to the
learned counsel, the learned Magistrate committed an error in putting the date
26.06.1995 instead of 27 .06.1995 which was evidently a mistake. It was urged
that in view of the clear statements of the eye-witness PW-1, no case has
H
)._,

896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.
io;.
·'<
A been made out for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment.

10. We have been taken through the deposition of PW-I in its entirety
by Mr. Kohli. Nothing has been pointed to discredit her testimony. Her
demeanour has been noticed by the learned Trial Judge. She demonstrated
as to how and in what manner the accused persons killed her son and how
B she tried to save him from repeated assault on him with sharp weapons. She,
in her statement, fully supported the contents of the First Information Report.
.,
According to her, the police came at the spot in ajeep at about 10 a.m. and
recorded her statement. We, therefore, are of the opinion that PW- I was a
reliable witness: Her evidence, in our opinion, was also corroborated by the
post mortem report which was proved by PW-4 Dr. R. Vimlesh. The deceased
c was found to have suffered the following ante-mortem injuries:

"(i) Incised wound with clear cut margin. Haris roots cut measuring . ·
18 cm x 5 cm x 6 112 cm, transversely placed over the upper part back
of neck at the level of cervical l vertebrae;
D (ii) Incised would with clear cut margin, hairs roots are cut 4 cm x
112 cm x muscle deep. Mid upper part of neck at the level of cervical -'\ )o..

vertebrae;

(iii) Incised wound 8.8 cm x 2 cm x bone;deep over the left lower
occipital area of head;
E
(iv) Incised wound 9 cm x 2.5 cm x lcm, fractur~ of skull bone cut off
on left mastroid area.

(v) Incised wound 3 cm x I cm x bone cut off. Posterior inferior part
of parietal bone fractured transversely placed on p'osterior inferior
F part of left side of extended to mid of lower part of occipital area.
'
~

(vi) Incised wound and clear cut margin 3.2 cm x 1.2 cm x 1 cm left
upper scapular area;

(vii) Incised wound with clear cut margin 6 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm left
G lateral back of shoulder;

(viii) Abrasion 8 cm x 1/4 cm vertically ,placed- ov~r
~. . the left medical
~.

upper part and back; >-
"""·
(ix) Abrasion 6 cm x < cm obliquely" left medical scapular area."

H 11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be based
..._(

MAHENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 897
;
, on the basis of the testimony of a sole eye-witness. [See Ramji Surjya Padvi A
and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [1983] 3 SCC 629, Anil Phukan v. State of
Assam, [1993] 3 SCC 282 and Sewaka Alias Ramsewak v. State of MP. and
Anr., [2001] 10 SCC 1]

12. It may be true that the chappal and blood stained clothes of PW-
1 were not seized but it is also well-known that deficiency in investigation B
shall not stand in the way of the court in arriving at a finding of guilt if it
·-.., is otherwise found to have been proved. [See Rotash v. State of Rajasthan,
(2006) 13 SCALE 186 and Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of
Kera/a, (2006) 13 SCALE 600]

13. So far as the contention of Mr. Kohli to the effect that the First c
Information Report was ante-timed is concerned, we do not see any reason
to accept the same. Occurrence had taken place on 27.06.1995 in the morning.
AU material witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer on that very
day. The post mortem examination was also held at 3 p.m. on that day.
D
14. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, as has rightly been
,., found by the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court, merely made a
mistake in putting the date as 26;06.1995 instead of27.06.1995.

15. The very fact that some digested food was found in the stomach
of the deceased, the same by itself was sufficient to show that he had taken E
food only in the morning of that date, i.e., within four hours from his death.
Even if he had taken some food, the same may not be within the knowledge
of PW-1.

16. Absence of motive is also not a relevant factor in this case. The
reason for the appellant doing away with the deceased is evident. He had F
;,
-f taken back the bull without the consent of the accused persons. They must
have become enraged because of the said act of the deceased and his mother.
They probably wanted to take the bull back or otherwise felt offended that
the deceased had been taking the bull away from their possession without
their consent as also in view of the fact that they had refused to part with
it.
G

17. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
,_....
r If the motive as assigned by the prosecution as against the appellant and the
said Harbhajan Singh for commission of the said offence was not correct,
nothing has 'been shown as to why despite such close relationship between H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A the parties, they would be falsely implicated.

18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion
that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.
B