Ramaia Raju Alias Chuti Vs. The Hon. Attorney General – HCC/273/16-2023

In the case between the Attorney General and Ramaia Raju alias Chuti, the court addressed the evaluation of delayed eyewitness testimony and other forensic evidence in a murder trial under Section 296 of the Penal Code. It was held that the conviction, including the death sentence, should be upheld, as the aggregate evidence—including the belated but justified statement of the eyewitness, uncontested recovery of a bloody knife, and the accused’s ineffective dock statement—was deemed credible and admissible. The principle reaffirmed is that delay in a witness statement may be acceptable where reasonable grounds (such as fear) exist and where material evidence remains unchallenged, it is treated as admitted. Precedents relating to the admissibility of delayed testimony and the probative valu