Credible related and partly hostile eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction where the remaining evidence is reliable and unprejudiced.

Credible eyewitness testimony may sustain a conviction even when witnesses are related, chance, or partly hostile, so long as the evidence is natural, cogent, and trustworthy; the dependable portions of hostile testimony remain usable. Non-examination of every possible witness is not fatal where the available evidence is sufficient, and the final report is only an investigative opinion, not substantive evidence. On that footing, the note states that the eyewitness account, recovery evidence, and FSL material were adequate, and that no demonstrated prejudice arose from the alleged delay in forwarding seized articles.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testimony of related, chance, and partly hostile eyewitnesses could sustain the conviction despite challenges to their credibility. (ii) Whether non-examination of the injured witness and the investigating officer, and the alleged delay in sending the seized articles to the FSL, vitiated the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the testimony of related, chance, and partly hostile eyewitnesses could sustain the conviction despite challenges to their credibility.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 emphasizes proof on the basis of the matters before the Court, while the evidentiary task is to assess quality rather than quantity. A related witness is not to be discarded merely for relationship if the testimony is natural, cogent, and trustworthy. A chance witness is not disbelieved merely because presence at the scene was accidental, though the evidence calls for careful scrutiny. A hostile witness is not effaced from the record and the dependable parts of such testimony may still be relied upon. The ocular evidence of the two eyewitnesses was found consistent and there was no material to treat them as interested witnesses.

Conclusion: The conviction could safely rest on the eyewitness evidence, and the challenge to their credibility failed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-examination of the injured witness and the investigating officer, and the alleged delay in sending the seized articles to the FSL, vitiated the prosecution case.

Analysis: Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the settled rule on appreciation of evidence show that non-production of every witness is not fatal if the available evidence is sufficient. Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 treats the final report as an investigative opinion and not substantive evidence. The Court also noted that the explanation for the non-examination of the injured witness and the further inability of the investigating officer was plausible, and that the FSL report together with the recovery evidence had been duly proved without demonstrated prejudice from any delay.

Conclusion: The omissions and alleged delay did not undermine the prosecution case or warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of guilt were upheld and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction may be sustained on credible eyewitness testimony even where witnesses are related, chance, or partly hostile, and non-examination of every possible witness does not vitiate the prosecution if the remaining evidence proves the case beyond reasonable doubt.

---