In Brief
Two accused appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder on the basis of eyewitness evidence and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court rejected corroborating evidence (recovery of weapons and a second eyewitness) but upheld the conviction based on the sole surviving eyewitness (PW-1), who had clearly narrated events with consistency and identified the accused in a TIP. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing the witness's evidence was unreliable due to lack of duty-posting proof and unnatural conduct. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that a single credible and consistent eyewitness account, where cross-examination reveals no material inconsistency and the witness has been identified in TIP, constitutes sufficient cogent evidence to sustain conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.