Under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can a murder conviction rest solely on the direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, without corroboration from any other witness?
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; N.V Anjaria
Yes. Section 134 lays down that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, and the court is concerned with the quality, not the quantity, of the evidence. Where the testimony of the sole eyewitness is found natural, cogent and trustworthy, it constitutes the best form of evidence and can alone sustain a conviction without corroboration.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II, s.34 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Murder — Sole eyewitness testimony — Interested witness — Delay in FIR — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Sole eyewitness testimony — Quality over quantity — Held: Direct ocular testimony of a single eyewitness, if natural, cogent and trustworthy, can alone sustain a murder conviction without corroboration. The court weighs the quality, not the quantity, of evidence necessary to prove a fact. (¶19, 20) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.134 — Related witness — Interested witness distinguished — Held further: A witness's relationship to the deceased, without more, does not make her an interested witness; that status requires proof of direct motive, personal animosity or other reason to falsely implicate the accused. A natural witness who is a close relative remains reliable. (¶23, 24, 25) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302, s.304 Parts I and II — Intention to kill — Held further: Whether an act is murder under Section 302 or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I or II turns on intention, gathered from the weapon used, the vital part targeted and premeditation. Injuries on the head, neck, chest and other vital parts evidence intent to kill. (¶26, 27, 28) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Delay in FIR — Explained delay not fatal — Held further: A delay in lodging the first information report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution's case once it stands well-explained; here, the daughter's shock upon witnessing her mother's killing explains the delay. Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence for murder affirmed. (¶29, 30, 37)
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of BALKU ORAM v. STATE OF ODISHA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India