Adalat Yadav etcv.State of Bihar

Legal Analysis: Adalat Yadav etc. vs. State of Bihar

Citation: 2026 INSC 403
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 
Judgment Author: Justice Sanjay Karol
Date of Decision: April 22, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 against High Court judgment affirming conviction and sentence for murder and other offences.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants (father and son) were convicted under Sections 302, 307, 149, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Ram Sharan Yadav. The trial court and High Court relied on the testimony of the complainant (PW‑5), who was an injured eyewitness. The High Court had doubted the credibility of four other eyewitnesses (PW‑1 to PW‑4) but convicted the appellants solely on the basis of PW‑5’s testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the testimony of a single injured eyewitness, if of sterling quality and consistent with the prosecution case, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court rejected arguments regarding delay in filing FIR, minor inconsistencies with medical evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and non-examination of certain police officials.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Adalat Yadav etc. vs. State of Bihar Criminal Appeal Nos. 1788-1789 of 2019 Bench Justice Sanjay Karol Date of Decision April 22, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 403 Appeal From Judgment dated 04.02.2017 of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 110/2012 and 79/2012

2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 149 (unlawful assembly), Section 120B (criminal conspiracy).

• Arms Act, 1959: Section 27 (punishment for using arms in contravention of the Act).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 313 (examination of accused).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 134 (number of witnesses – no particular number required), principles of evaluation of eyewitness testimony.

Precedents Cited:

• Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand (2014) – Evidence to be weighed, not counted; classification of witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or partly reliable.

• Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) – Single witness testimony can be acted upon if wholly reliable.

• Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957) – Corroboration required only for the third category of witnesses.

• Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) – Definition of “sterling witness” – unassailable, consistent version from start to end, withstands cross-examination, matches supporting material.

• Ganesan v. State (2020) – Same principle.

• Naresh v. State of Haryana (2021) – Eyewitness evidence must be of sterling quality.

• State of H.P. v. Gian Chand (2001) – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal if satisfactorily explained.

• Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2001) – Various genuine causes for delay (rural ignorance, lack of transport, shock, fear).

• Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra (2007) – Delay must be considered in totality of circumstances; no straitjacket formula.

• Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2008) – Delay not fatal if explained; otherwise adverse inference.

• Sudip Kumar Sen v. State of W.B. (2016) – Relied upon by High Court for convicting on sole testimony.

• Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) – Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless manifest error.

• Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka (2018) – Same principle.

What the Judgment is About: The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness if that witness is “sterling” – i.e., wholly reliable, consistent, and able to withstand cross-examination. It also clarifies that minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not vitiate the prosecution case; that delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if properly explained; and that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution when the witness is an injured eyewitness.

3. Relevant Facts

• Incident (04.12.2008): The deceased Ram Sharan Yadav was returning from Begusarai Court along with his brother Sunil Yadav (PW‑5/complainant). Near a grocery shop run by Suresh Mahto, the appellants and other accused surrounded them. Appellant Adalat Yadav abused the deceased, stated that despite warnings against giving depositions in a murder case, the deceased had not heeded, and then fired a pistol at the deceased’s head. The deceased fell and died instantly. Appellant Anirudh Yadav also fired at the deceased. Other accused fired at PW‑5, Ganesh, and Baidyanath. PW‑5 was hit by a bullet from one Shivji Yadav.

• FIR: Registered on the same day at 10:30 PM (delay of about 4-5 hours).

• Investigation: Charge sheets filed in March 2009.

• Trial court conviction (22.11.2011): Convicted four persons including the two appellants under Sections 302, 307, 149, 120B IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. Sentences: life imprisonment for murder, 10 years for attempt to murder, 7 years under Arms Act, with fines.

• High Court (04.02.2017): Doubted the credibility of four eyewitnesses (PW‑1 to PW‑4) but confirmed conviction of the appellants based solely on the testimony of PW‑5 (the injured complainant), relying on Sudip Kumar Sen.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: Appellants challenged the conviction.

4. Issues

1. Whether the conviction can be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness (PW‑5) when the High Court itself doubted four other eyewitnesses.

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case.

3. Whether the failure to examine certain police officials and the absence of independent witnesses from the village render the prosecution case unreliable.

4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• Sole testimony of a sterling witness is sufficient for conviction: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required. A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is wholly reliable. The test is whether the witness is a “sterling witness” – one whose version is unassailable, consistent from the initial statement to the court testimony, withstands cross-examination, and matches other supporting material (Para 7-8, citing Rai Sandeep and Naresh).

• PW‑5 was an injured eyewitness – his testimony at a higher pedestal: The Court noted that PW‑5 was not only an eyewitness but also an injured witness (shot below his right knee). The testimony of an injured witness carries greater weight because his presence at the scene is beyond doubt. He has no reason to falsely implicate the accused unless there is strong evidence to the contrary (Para 11).

• Delay in FIR explained and not fatal: The incident occurred between 5-6 PM; FIR was lodged at 10:30 PM the same day. The Court held that a delay of a few hours in a rural area is not fatal. The witnesses had to take the injured to the hospital, the family was in shock, and the police station was at a distance. The prosecution offered a reasonable explanation, and the delay did not cast doubt on the prosecution case (Para 9-10, citing Gian Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Ramdas).

• Minor conflict with medical evidence does not discredit eyewitness: The post-mortem report showed entry wound at the back of the skull and exit at the upper base of the nose, while PW‑5 stated the deceased was shot on the head. The Court held that both statements are consistent – the head includes the skull. Eyewitness testimony prevails over expert medical opinion when there is no material contradiction. The witness saw the shooting; the doctor examined the wounds. The difference in describing the exact point of entry is minor and does not undermine the core fact that the deceased was shot on the head (Para 11).

• Lack of independent witnesses – not fatal in a case of village enmity: The Court acknowledged that in rural areas, especially where the accused are influential or where there is a history of violence, villagers may be reluctant to come forward as witnesses. The absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit the prosecution when the injured eyewitness’s testimony is credible (Para 12).

• Non-examination of certain police officials – no prejudice shown: The appellants argued that the officer‑in‑charge who received the written report and other police personnel were not examined. The Court held that the prosecution is not obliged to examine every witness. Unless the accused can show prejudice, the non-examination of such witnesses is not a ground for acquittal (Para 6(d), 12).

• Concurrent findings of fact – limited interference under Article 136: The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court does not normally interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and High Court unless there is manifest error or perversity. No such error was found (Para 5).

• Appellant Anirudh Yadav’s role established: PW‑5 clearly stated that Anirudh Yadav also fired at the deceased. His participation in the group that surrounded the victim and his act of firing established his common intention and liability under Section 302 read with 149 IPC (Para 13).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Reiteration of the “sterling witness” standard: The judgment restates the test for a “sterling witness” – unassailable version, consistency from initial statement to court testimony, ability to withstand cross-examination, and correlation with other evidence. This test is particularly important when a conviction is based on a single witness.

• Injured witness testimony is inherently more reliable: The Court reaffirmed that the presence of an injured witness at the scene is natural and his testimony cannot be lightly discarded. The fact that he was injured gives him a strong motive to truthfully implicate the real culprits.

• Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence are not fatal: The Court clarified that eyewitnesses are not expected to describe injuries with medical precision. As long as the core fact (e.g., shooting on the head) is consistent, minor variations in the exact location of the wound do not create a fatal contradiction.

• Delay in FIR in rural areas – common sense approach: The Court rejected a hypertechnical approach to delay in FIR, especially in rural settings where transport, communication, and access to police stations may be limited, and where family members may be in shock or attending to the injured.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Evaluation of PW‑5’s testimony: The Court noted that PW‑5 was not only an eyewitness but also the brother of the deceased and an injured victim. His presence at the scene was beyond doubt. He was cross‑examined at length, but his core version – that the appellants fired at the deceased – remained unshaken. The Court found his testimony to be of “sterling quality.”

• Treatment of the High Court’s doubt on other witnesses: The High Court had doubted the credibility of PW‑1 to PW‑4, noting contradictions and inconsistencies. However, the Supreme Court did not need to examine that aspect because the conviction was sustained solely on PW‑5. The Court held that even if four witnesses are disbelieved, the testimony of a single reliable witness is sufficient.

• Rejection of the “place of occurrence” argument: The appellants argued that the Investigating Officer testified that the place of occurrence was Bhagatpur Pitch Road, not near Suresh Mahto’s grocery shop. The Court did not explicitly address this but noted that PW‑5 consistently stated the location as near the shop. The discrepancy was minor and did not affect the credibility.

• Medical evidence consistency: The Court compared PW‑5’s statement (“shot in Ram Sharan Yadav’s head”) with the post‑mortem report (entry at back of skull, exit at upper base of nose). It held that both statements are consistent – “head” includes the skull. The eyewitness is not expected to know the exact anatomical entry point; his observation that the bullet struck the head is sufficient.

• Societal realities and reluctance of villagers: The Court took judicial notice of the fact that in villages where influential persons or criminal gangs operate, ordinary villagers may be terrified to come forward as witnesses. This is especially true when the deceased was a witness in a murder trial against an influential person (Girdhari Yadav). The absence of independent witnesses was therefore understandable.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a textbook reaffirmation of the well‑settled principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. It correctly applies the “sterling witness” test and the principle that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal. The Court’s pragmatic approach to delay in FIR in rural areas and to minor inconsistencies with medical evidence is sensible and prevents hypertechnical acquittals. The judgment also respects the limited scope of interference under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address the argument that the Investigating Officer’s testimony contradicted the place of occurrence mentioned in the FIR. The Court dismissed this as a minor issue without detailed reasoning. Also, the Court did not examine whether the non-examination of the officer‑in‑charge who received the written report could have caused prejudice – it summarily held that it did not. While the outcome is likely correct, a more detailed discussion on these points would have strengthened the judgment.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by the prosecution in cases where the conviction is based on a single eyewitness, especially an injured witness. It reinforces that courts should not insist on multiple witnesses or independent witnesses when the testimony of a single credible witness is available. It also provides a clear standard for what constitutes a “sterling witness.” Defence counsel will have a harder time challenging convictions based on sole testimony unless they can show that the witness was not reliable.

9. Final Outcome

Appeals dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants (Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav) under Sections 302, 307, 149, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act are upheld. The concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court are affirmed. No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By prosecution (in criminal trials): To sustain a conviction on the testimony of a single eyewitness, ensure that the witness’s evidence is consistent, natural, and withstands cross‑examination. Emphasise if the witness is an injured witness – this adds great weight. Cite this judgment to argue that a “sterling witness” is sufficient even if other witnesses are disbelieved.

• By defence (in criminal trials): To challenge a conviction based on a single witness, show that the witness is not “sterling” – i.e., there are material contradictions, the witness has a motive to falsely implicate, or the testimony is inconsistent with documentary or medical evidence. Also, argue that the absence of independent witnesses when they were available may indicate that the prosecution is suppressing the truth.

• By appellate courts: When reviewing a conviction based on a single witness, apply the “sterling witness” test. If the witness’s testimony is found to be wholly reliable, the conviction can be upheld even if other witnesses are disbelieved. Do not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest error or perversity.

11. Court Lines

“The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. … It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.” (Para 7, quoting Lallu Manjhi and Amar Singh)

“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. … Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test … can it be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration.” (Para 8, quoting Rai Sandeep)

“Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not.” (Para 9, quoting Gian Chand)

“In our view, both these testimonies are consistent for both, albeit in different terms, say that the deceased was shot on his head. … Since PW-5 has withstood the test of cross-examination is an undisputed eyewitness to the incident and is also an injured witness, his testimony would be at a higher pedestal.” (Para 11)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the prosecution: In a case where you have only one credible eyewitness, focus on establishing that witness as a “sterling witness.” Lead evidence that shows the witness’s presence at the scene is natural (e.g., he is a family member, he was injured). Ensure that the witness’s statement under Section 161 CrPC is consistent with his deposition in court. Anticipate cross‑examination on minor inconsistencies – argue that they do not go to the root of the matter. If the witness is injured, emphasise that fact repeatedly. Also, if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, lead evidence explaining the delay (e.g., distance to police station, treatment of injured, state of shock). Do not rely on the court to infer the explanation; prove it through the witness.

For the defence: To challenge a conviction based on a single witness, first examine whether the witness had a motive to falsely implicate the accused (e.g., previous enmity). If the witness is a family member of the deceased, argue that his testimony is interested and requires corroboration. Point out any material contradictions between the witness’s statement and the FIR, medical evidence, or other witnesses. If the witness is not injured, argue that his presence at the scene is doubtful. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR without satisfactory explanation, argue that the possibility of embellishment or false implication cannot be ruled out. Also, highlight the absence of independent witnesses from the locality to show that the prosecution is not presenting the true version of events. However, note that this judgment makes it clear that a single injured eyewitness can be sufficient. Therefore, focus on undermining the credibility of that witness through thorough cross‑examination, rather than relying on the absence of other witnesses.