State through the Inspector of Police vs Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc.
Background
The accused were tried for murdering one Saravanan in 2013, allegedly on suspicion that he had informed on the whereabouts of a friend of theirs who had been murdered. The accused allegedly intercepted the car the deceased was travelling in, attacked him, and after he fled into a shed, chased him and killed him there. The trial court convicted the accused (one under Section 302 IPC, two others under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC) based mainly on the eyewitness testimony of PW1, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Madras High Court, however, acquitted them on appeal, citing multiple weaknesses: three of six eyewitnesses turned hostile, the original complainant was never examined, the FIR's timing and dispatch to the magistrate raised doubts about genuineness, and the recovered weapons' blood group was never matched. The State appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court closely examined the deposition of PW1, the sole surviving reliable eyewitness, who had witnessed the attack at both the car and the shed and withstood cross-examination without contradiction. The Court held that the non-examination of the original complainant, absence of proven weapon recovery, and minor contradictions about FIR timing were not, by themselves, sufficient grounds for acquittal when a credible, consistent eyewitness account existed: settled law permits conviction on the testimony of a single trustworthy eyewitness, and recovery of the weapon is not a mandatory precondition for conviction where direct eyewitness evidence exists. Finding PW1's testimony reliable and the High Court's acquittal unsustainable, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restored the trial court's conviction and life sentences, and directed the accused to surrender within six weeks.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction can validly rest on the testimony of a single credible eyewitness, and procedural gaps such as an unexamined complainant or unproven weapon recovery do not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal if direct, reliable eyewitness evidence otherwise establishes guilt.