Solitary eyewitness testimony and missing link evidence cannot safely sustain conviction without independent corroboration.

A solitary eyewitness account was treated as unsafe where material witnesses were not examined, the witness's presence at the scene was doubtful from the surrounding record, and independent corroboration was absent. The prosecution's failure to produce the persons said to have seen the and taken the deceased to hospital left the case without reliable support. The text also states that Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act requires examination-in-chief before cross-examination, so treating material witnesses as tendered only for cross-examination was impermissible. The absence of ballistic examination of the recovered cartridge and pistol further weakened the link evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution could rely on the sole testimony of the deceased's brother when material witnesses were not examined and the surrounding circumstances created doubt about his presence at the scene. (ii) Whether a witness could validly be tendered for cross-examination only without any examination-in-chief, and whether the omission to obtain ballistic expert evidence further weakened the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution could rely on the sole testimony of the deceased's brother when material witnesses were not examined and the surrounding circumstances created doubt about his presence at the scene.

Analysis: The evidence of the solitary eyewitness was not accepted as wholly reliable because his name did not appear in the immediate hospital report, the special report reached the Magistrate with delay, and the prosecution case itself indicated that other persons had witnessed the and had taken the deceased to hospital. The non-examination of those material witnesses left the prosecution version without the independent support needed to remove the doubts surrounding the eyewitness account. The empty stomach and bladder were not treated as conclusive, but the overall record made the sole testimony unsafe to act upon without corroboration.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the sole eyewitness alone, and the conviction could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether a witness could validly be tendered for cross-examination only without any examination-in-chief, and whether the omission to obtain ballistic expert evidence further weakened the prosecution case.

Analysis: Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates examination-in-chief followed by cross-examination and re-examination, and there is no legal basis for treating a material witness as merely tendered for cross-examination without any examination-in-chief on record. The material witnesses who were so treated were, in effect, not examined at trial, which seriously affected the credibility of the prosecution case. In addition, although a cartridge case and pistol were recovered, the prosecution did not send them for ballistic examination, thereby withholding important link evidence connecting the accused with the offence.

Conclusion: The practice of tendering the material witnesses for cross-examination only was impermissible, and the absence of ballistic evidence further weakened the prosecution case.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was found insufficient and unreliable, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A material witness cannot be treated as cross-examinable in the absence of examination-in-chief, and where the prosecution case rests on a solitary eyewitness with unexamined material witnesses and missing scientific link evidence, conviction cannot safely be sustained without independent corroboration.

---