Credible eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction without independent witnesses, test identification parade, or ballistic linkage.

Credible and consistent testimony of injured and eyewitness witnesses can sustain a prosecution case even without independent witnesses, where the evidence contains no material contradictions. First-time identification in court is not unreliable merely because no test identification parade was held if the accused were already known to the witnesses and their names appeared in the FIR. The absence of ballistic evidence or a weapon-to-cartridge linkage does not by itself create doubt where the remaining evidence is trustworthy. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution version could be rejected because only related or interested witnesses were examined and no independent witness was produced; (ii) whether identification of the accused in court for the first time was unreliable in the absence of a test identification parade; (iii) whether the absence of ballistic evidence or a weapon-to-cartridge linkage created doubt in the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution version could be rejected because only related or interested witnesses were examined and no independent witness was produced.

Analysis: The evidence of injured and eyewitness witnesses was found to be credible and consistent, with no material contradictions. The mere absence of independent witnesses did not justify rejection of the prosecution case where the available testimony was trustworthy and acceptable.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the prosecution evidence was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether identification of the accused in court for the first time was unreliable in the absence of a test identification parade.

Analysis: First-time identification in court is ordinarily a matter of prudence requiring corroboration when the accused are strangers, but that safeguard is not indispensable where the witnesses already knew the accused and their names were mentioned in the FIR. In such a situation, credible testimony and prior acquaintance sufficiently supported identification.

Conclusion: The identification evidence was held reliable and the absence of a test identification parade was not fatal.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of ballistic evidence or a weapon-to-cartridge linkage created doubt in the prosecution case.

Analysis: No weapon was shown to have been recovered in a manner that would permit ballistic comparison with the empty cartridges. In those circumstances, the absence of expert opinion did not weaken the case, and the remaining evidence supported the conviction.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected and no interference with the conviction was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was found to be devoid of merit, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Credible and consistent evidence of injured or acquainted eyewitnesses can sustain a conviction even without independent corroboration, a test identification parade, or ballistic linkage, where the accused were already known to the witnesses and the prosecution version is otherwise trustworthy.

---