Eyewitness identification remains reliable where alleged darkness is unproved and the record supports sufficient visibility at the scene.

Eyewitness identification was held reliable despite the appellant's claim of darkness at the scene, because the defence evidence about fused street lights was vague and unproved. The eyewitnesses were not shown to be unreliable, and their testimony on identification was not shaken in cross-examination. The investigating officer's evidence did not prove that the place was entirely dark; it only indicated that the light was insufficient for inquest formalities, not that no visibility existed. On that record, the courts were justified in finding enough light near the spot to identify the assailant, so the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained when the appellant challenged the identification of the assailant on the ground of darkness and alleged absence of lighting at the place of occurrence.

Analysis: The challenge to identification was rejected because the defence evidence regarding fused street lights was vague and unproved. The eye-witnesses were not shown to be unreliable, and their testimony was not effectively shaken in cross-examination on the question of identification. The evidence of the investigating officer did not establish that the place was dark; at most it showed that the light was insufficient for completing inquest formalities, not that no light was available. On the record, the courts below were justified in accepting that there was enough light near the spot to identify the assailant.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the appellant's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal raised no substantial infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction based on eyewitness identification will not be disturbed merely because the accused alleges darkness, where the defence evidence of non-availability of light is unproved and the record supports sufficient visibility to identify the assailant.

---