Chhotelal S/o Dalchand vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.02.1995 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Session Trial No.

326/1994 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

Brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.1994 at about 5-6 pm in the evening, the appellant Chhotelal came to the shop of Anil Kumar (PW-7)

(situated near Ankur Complex, Habibganj, Bhopal) and demanded Rs. 20/- for drinking liquor. Anil refused the demand. On the same day, at

about 9-10 pm at night, when Anil returned to his house from the shop, his brother-in-law (jija) Raghunath told him that Chhotelal (appellant),

Gopal alongwith 2-3 persons came to his house and enquired about Anil. Again at about 10:00 pm, appellant along with other persons came to

their house and enquired about Anil, at that time Raghunath and Parasram came out while Anil stayed inside. So, the appellant and his companions

beat them and left the place. When Anil and Raghunath were going to lodge FIR against the appellant & his companions by an autorikshaw, the

appellant and his companions stopped them in front of Ankur Complex. The appellant assaulted Raghunath by a knife. His companions inflicted

blows of hockey and sticks on him. At the same time Anil was also assaulted by them. He sustained injuries and brought Raghunath to Jay Prakash

Hospital (1250). Raghunath died due to injuries sustained by him over his head and chest. Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P/10) was lodged by Anil at Police

Station Habibganj. FIR has been registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, Gopal and others. After

investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court under Section 302/34 of IPC.

After committal of case, charges under Section 148, 302 (in alternate 302/149) and 323 (in alternate 323/149) of IPC has been framed by the

learned Trial Court against the appellant. The appellant and other accused persons abjured guilt and pleaded that they were innocent and falsely

implicated by the police. After considering the entire evidence on record, learned Trial Court relied on the testimony of sole eye-witness Anil

Kumar (PW-7). Other eye-witnesses Gaya Prasad (PW-1), Gorelal (PW-8) and Parasram Mishra (PW-10) were turned hostile. Anil Kumar

(PW-7) clearly deposed against the appellant only, to implicate him for committing murder of Raghunath. His testimony was duly corroborated by

Dr. P.K.Athwal (PW-6) Medical Officer. Hence, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for

life imprisonment. However, he was acquitted from the charges under Section 148 and 323 of the IPC. Other accused persons were acquitted

from all the charges levelled against them.

Appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to see that there was no motive for committing murder of

the deceased Raghunath. Anil Kumar (PW-7) is interested witness. There is so many contradictions in his testimony. The independent witnesses

turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Even though, if any offence was committed, it would fall under the ambit of Section 304

Part II of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and acquittal from

the charge levelled against him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record.

Deceased Raghunath is the brother-in-law of Anil (PW-7) Testimony of Anil Kumar (PW-7) and Dr. P.K.Athwal (PW-6) clearly establish that

Raghunath died on 12.05.1994 due to head injury and stab wound over his chest.

Anil Kumar (PW-7) deposed that on 12.05.1994 at about 10:00 pm., the appellant came to his house along with 4-5 persons. At that time, he

had consumed liquor. The appellant beat his brother-in-law Raghunath Mishra. Thereafter, Raghunath Mishra along with Anil were going to police

station to lodge a report. On the way, their autorikshaw was shopped by the appellant. Then, the appellant along with other persons started

assaulting Anil and Raghunath. He stabbed a gupti (knife) on Raghunath''s chest. Other persons inflicted blow of hockey and sticks. Anil Kumar

(PW-7) also sustained injuries. Thereafter, appellant and other persons fled away from the spot. Anit (PW-7) brought his brother-in-law

Raghunath to Jay Prakash Hospital (1250) in an auto. Then matter was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where the doctor declared

Raghunath dead.

Incident took place because earlier on the same day the appellant had demanded Rs. 20/- from him for drinking liquor. When Anil refused to

fulfill the demand, appellant quarreled with him. FIR was lodged by Anil Kumar (PW-7) on the date of incident. Gaya Prasad (PW-1), Gorelal

(PW-8) and Parasram Mishra (PW-10) turned hostile. Anil Kumar (PW-7) also stated that he sustained injuries in his left hand.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that because Anil Kumar (PW-7) is a close relative of the deceased, his testimony is not corroborated

by other witnesses and independent witness also, hence it cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellant.

We are not inclined to accept the above contention. There is no number of witness prescribed to prove any fact against the accused under

Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Further, it is seen that witnesses any incident do not come forward to say anything in favour of the victim or

injured persons. They want to stay away from any dispute.

In case of SPS Rathore Vs. CBI & Anr., 2017 Cri.L.J 537, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under :

No particular number of witnesses is required for proving a certain fact. It is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters.

Evidence is weighed and not counted. Evidence of even a single eye witness, truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for maintaining

conviction. It is not necessary that all those persons who were present at the spot must be examined by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt

of the accused. Having examined all the witnesses, even if other persons present nearby not examined, the evidence of eye-witness cannot be

discarded.

After considering the trend of eye-witness and in the light of provision of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. In each case it is not

necessary that the sole testimony of eyewitness be presumed false or discarded only because he is close relative of the deceased. Therefore, there

needs to be close scrutiny. We find that testimony of Anil Kumar (PW-7) is wholly corroborated by evidence of Dr. P.K.Athwal. Here is no

contradiction and omission between ocular and medical evidence. Hence, as an interested witness, the testimony of Anil Kumar (PW-7) can be the

basis of conviction of appellant.

In case of Roop Narain Mishra Vs. State of UP [2017 Cri.LJ 1487] has held as under :

On the point of ''interested witnesses'', the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdeo, reported in 2003 Cri LJ 844 (SC) observed that

only on the ground of interested or related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of the times eye witnesses happen to be family

members or close associates because unless a crime is committed near a public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of

occurrence.

S.M.Jaidi (PW-12) Station Incharge of Police Station Habibgang also corroborated his testimony. He deposed that he received information

about the incident on 12.05.1994. Then he proceeded for investigation on 13.05.1994. He sent the body of Raghunath for post-mortem and

prepared spot map (Exh. P/13) on the scene of occurrence. The statement of the witness Anil Kumar, Parasram, Gaya Prasad and Shrinath were

recorded promptly as narrated by them. Appellant was arrested on 15.05.1994. A knife in the form of a gupti was recovered on the memorandum

of the appellant (Exh. P/23). Plain and red soil was recovered from the scene of occurrence (Exh. P/24). Thereafter, all the articles including gupti

(Article C) were sent for FSL examination.

As per FSL report, Exh. P/30 blood stains were found on the gupti (Article C). Due to less quantity of blood present over Article C, FSL

could not confirm the blood group and whether it was human blood. Hence, we also rely on the testimony of Anil Kumar (PW-7) because his

evidence is itself found trustworthy and also corroborated by other evidence against the appellant. It was established that the weapon gupti was

seized on the memorandum of the appellant. It was blood stained. Hence, it proves that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant by

this weapon. In case of Sudip Kumar Sen vs. State of West Bengal (2016) 3 SCC 26, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that :

Observing that there is no impediment for recording conviction based on the testimony of a single witness provided it is reliable in Prithipal Singh

& Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10, it was observed as under:-

This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly

reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the

Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the

quality that is material. The timehonoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring

of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than

on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and

record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of

evidence.

The case of the appellant does not fall under the purview of Section 304 (Part I or II) of the IPC because circumstances against the appellant

shows that prior to the incident, he had quarreled with Anil Kumar (PW-7) for demand of money for drinking liquor. He was annoyed when Anil

refused to give him the money. Hence, appellant had motive to commit the crime. Further, in a pre-planned way, he chased Anil and Raghunath

when they were going to the police station to lodge a report against the appellant. At that time, some other persons also helped the appellant.

There is unrebutted testimony of Anil Kumar (PW-7) against them that he also sustained injuries during the incident. The testimony of injured

witness has great value.

In case of Chandrasekar & Anr. Vs. State, 2017 SCC Online SC 620, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that :

Criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence as it presumes that he was speaking

the truth unless shown otherwise. Though, the law is well settled and precedents abound, reference may usefully be made to Brahm Swaroop Vs.

State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of

such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the

crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.

All the circumstances establish that the appellant had intention to cause injury to the deceased and murder him. Therefore, the appellant was

rightly convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled and he is directed to surrender immediately before the Trial Court for undergoing the

remaining jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate action under intimation to the registry.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.