Single eyewitness evidence can sustain murder conviction when reliable testimony is corroborated by medical and surrounding circumstantial evidence.

A murder conviction can rest on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the witness is found reliable and the account is materially corroborated by other evidence. Minor omissions in a prior statement under Section 161 CrPC do not discredit the core version where the witness promptly identified the accused, the FIR was lodged without delay, and medical evidence supported the assault description through multiple fatal incised injuries. Surrounding circumstances, including the victim's presence immediately before the and the accused's post-occurrence conduct, reinforced the prosecution case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, despite omissions in her prior statement and absence of other direct eyewitnesses.

Analysis: The eyewitness was the deceased's sister and had seen the assault, identified the accused persons at the scene in the available light, and promptly named them in the FIR. Minor omissions in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not demolish her version, particularly when her account was materially supported by the medical evidence showing multiple fatal incised injuries consistent with the assault described by her. The surrounding circumstances, including the prompt report, the presence of the deceased immediately before the occurrence, and the post-occurrence conduct of the accused, reinforced the prosecution version. In such circumstances, a conviction can validly rest on a single eyewitness if the witness is found reliable.

Conclusion: The solitary eyewitness was held to be reliable and trustworthy, and the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for murder may be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the witness is found reliable and the account is materially corroborated by other evidence; minor omissions or exaggerations do not vitiate the conviction when the core version remains trustworthy.

---