Sole eye-witness evidence and corroboration can sustain murder conviction despite delayed reporting and circumstantial delay explanations

A conviction can rest on a truthful sole eye-witness if the account is natural, consistent and materially corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence; a delayed first information report will not weaken the prosecution where the delay is satisfactorily explained. The proved facts also showed repeated attempts to run down the victims and a final deliberate impact causing death, which supported an inference of intentional infliction of bodily injury with knowledge that death was likely. On that reasoning, the case fell within murder rather than culpable homicide, and the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of the sole eye-witness and the surrounding circumstances established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt despite the delayed first information report. (ii) Whether the act proved amounted to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or only culpable homicide.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of the sole eye-witness and the surrounding circumstances established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt despite the delayed first information report.

Analysis: The eye-witness account was found natural, consistent, and materially unshaken in cross-examination. It was corroborated by the condition of the damaged car, recovery of matching glass pieces and the missing plastic strip from the spot, and the medical evidence showing injuries consistent with the manner of assault described by the witness. The delay in lodging the report was satisfactorily explained by the shock and condition of the witness and the family circumstances, and no adverse inference was warranted.

Conclusion: The prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court was not justified in rejecting the evidence or extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the act proved amounted to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or only culpable homicide.

Analysis: The proved conduct showed repeated attempts to run down the victims and a final deliberate hit causing the death. The force of impact and the surrounding circumstances established that the accused intentionally caused bodily injury knowing it to be likely to cause death, bringing the case within the definition of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was in law and the plea for reduction to Section 304 failed.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction for murder with life imprisonment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may safely rest on the testimony of a truthful sole eye-witness when it is materially corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and deliberate repeated attempts to cause a fatal road impact can attract murder where the accused intentionally inflicts bodily injury knowing death is likely.

---