ROBIN TAMANG @ JO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant appeal, the appellant assails his conviction by the judgment dated 26th July, 2016 for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' hereafter) with which he was charged in the case being SC No. 27842/16 (Old No.86/15) arising out of FIR No.421/13 by Police Station Burari.

(2.) Mr. Chetan Lokur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has primarily assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the conviction of the appellant rests on the solitary eye witness account of one Bikas Gurang who was examined as PW1. Learned counsel would contend that the testimony of this witness is unreliable and shaky and, therefore, the conviction based thereon cannot be sustained.

(3.) It is further submitted that the testimony suffers from improvements in material particulars as well as embellishments which render the eye witness account given by him as unreliable. It is submitted that given the nature of his testimony in court, the learned trial judge should have insisted upon corroboration of the evidence tendered by this witness.