Mr. Vaibhaw, the High Court and Trial Court have concurrently convicted the appellant. Under settled law, the Supreme Court is slow to interfere with concurrent findings. Why should we interfere in this case?

My Lord, the respondent does not dispute that the Supreme Court is slow to interfere with concurrent findings. However, the appellant has not shown any perversity or manifest error in the judgments of the courts below. The Trial Court carefully evaluated the evidence of PW1 and found it credible. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and concurred. The fact that PW3 turned hostile does not make PW1's testimony unreliable. The medical discrepancy is minor and was explained. There is no ground for interference. The respondent submits that this Court should dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction.

But PW3, the other eyewitness, turned hostile and said he never went to inform PW1. PW4 and PW5, the Panchayat witnesses, also turned hostile and said no Panchayat was held. With the only remaining eyewitness being the mother, and with no independent corroboration, is that sufficient for a murder conviction?

My Lord, the mother's testimony alone can be sufficient if it is credible. This Court has repeatedly held that the testimony of a single witness, if trustworthy, can form the basis of a conviction. There is no requirement of a particular number of witnesses. Here, PW1's testimony is not completely uncorroborated. It is corroborated by the medical evidence — the injuries described in the postmortem report are consistent with a stone assault. It is corroborated by the recovery of the stone from the scene of offence and the FSL report showing human blood on the stone. It is corroborated by the fact that PW1 herself suffered injuries (proved by the Wound Certificate). The evidence of PW2 (brother of PW1) also corroborates that he received a phone call from PW1 about the incident. Therefore, even though PW3 turned hostile, there is sufficient corroboration for PW1's testimony. The conviction is sound.

The doctor admitted that the postmortem report has the wrong date. He said he made an error due to night duty. A one-day error in the date of postmortem — is that not a serious discrepancy that goes to the credibility of the entire medical evidence?

My Lord, the respondent submits that the discrepancy is minor and does not go to the core of the prosecution case. The question is not whether the postmortem was done on 13 May or 14 May — the question is whether the deceased died of head injuries caused by a stone. That fact is undisputed. The doctor explained the error. This Court has held in State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not destroy the prosecution case if the core finding is consistent. Here, the core finding — the cause of death — is consistent. The stone was recovered. The blood on the stone matched the deceased's blood group. The discrepancy in the date does not affect the finding of guilt.

The appellant's counsel argues that the hostile testimony of PW3 — that he never went to inform PW1 — should be used to discredit PW1. Can hostile testimony be used against the prosecution?

My Lord, the law is that hostile testimony is admissible but the court must examine it carefully. The court can accept the part that is reliable and reject the part that is not. Here, PW3 admitted that his Section 161 statement was false and was made at the instance of the accused. That admission itself shows that PW3 is not a truthful witness. His testimony that he never went to inform PW1 is part of the same dishonest narrative. The court should reject his entire testimony as unreliable. Moreover, even if PW3 did not inform PW1, PW1 could have come to know about the incident from other sources — the noise, the commotion, or from other villagers. PW1's testimony does not depend solely on PW3's information. Therefore, the hostile testimony of PW3 does not discredit PW1.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

Concurrent Findings of Guilt Deserve Deference — (2026) INSC 486

The trial court and the High Court have concurrently found the appellant guilty based on the credible testimony of the mother (PW1), corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon.

Talari Naresh vs State of Telangana: Full Judgment PDF, Facts & Legal Analysis — (2026) INSC 486

Core Argument

The trial court and the High Court have concurrently found the appellant guilty based on the credible testimony of the mother (PW1), corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon. The hostile witnesses do not destroy the prosecution case, and the Supreme Court should not interfere with concurrent findings.

Key Precedents

Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 8 SCR 133 — Held that the evidence of a partisan witness must be carefully weighed but not mechanically rejected, and that a relative of the deceased is a natural witness.
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 627 — Held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not completely effaced and can be accepted to the extent it is found dependable.
State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 — Held that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not destroy the prosecution case if the core finding is consistent.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in