Mela Singh Gond vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.251/2004 by the Sessions Judge, Shahdol.

The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded Life

imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.07.2004 Budhni Bai returned to the house of her husband from the house of her parents. Budhni Bai

was living with father-in-law because her husband was died earlier. Accused/appellant was in the house of Budhani Bai, he left house at around 5

O''clock in the evening. He again came back at the house of Budhni Bai, he was having Tangi [axe] in his hand. Budhni Bai was clearing rise in the

Courtyard. Her father-in-law namely; Jageshwar Gond [since deceased] was sitting out-side of the house beneath the tree of Kathal. Appellant

also sat with deceased, he demanded Chiken from Jageshwar [since deceased]. Budhni Bai heard sound, she came out of the house and noticed

that appellant-Mela Singh Gond had inflicted two blows of Tangi on the head of deceased. Thereafter, appellant ran away from the spot.

Deceased was died on the spot. After hearing sound, Bhagwandeen and Acchelal both reached on the spot. Budhni Bai narrated incident to the

Sarpanch of the Village Mr. Goutam Singh and on the next day, report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Jaithari. Accused/appellant

himself reached at the Police Station along with Tangi and narrated the incident to police. Police arrested him and also seized Tangi. An offence

was registered against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Police conducted investigation and filed

charge-sheet. During trial, appellant pleaded innocence. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Trial Court after trial held the

appellant guilty for murder of Jageshwar Gond and awarded sentence of life.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that evidence of sole eye witness Budhni Bai [PW-1] is not reliable. Trial Court has committed

an error of law in convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence of sole eye witness. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that ofence alleged to be committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant. Evidence of (PW-1) is natural and trustworthy.

Trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly hence, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is proper.

[PW-1] Budhni Bai is eye witness. She deposed that when I returned back from the house of my father and mother, I noticed that my house

was locked inside by the appellant. After my calling, appellant opened the door and thereafter, he closed the door. At that time, deceased i.e.

father-in-law was in the house. Thereafter, appellant went to his house. After some time, he again came to my house. My father-in-law was sitting

on the cot. Appellant demanded Chicken from my father-in-law. Thereafter, I heard the sound and I noticed that appellant had been inflicting

blows by Tangi on the neck of my father-in-law. Appellant had inflicted two blows on the neck of my father-in-law, then I cried. Appellant told me

that I would kill you also. Appellant ran away from the spot. Deceased was died on the spot. Munnibai reached at the spot then, we went at the

house of Mr. Goutam, Sarpanch of the Village and on the next day, report was lodged at the Police Station by me. I affixed my thumb impression

on the report. Police reached on the spot and prepared spot map. There was a dispute with the accused in regard to a land.

(PW-2) Rakesh deposed that when I returned back, I came to know that deceased was killed. Budhnibai (PW-1) was in the house. Police

called me and I signed Ex.P-2.

(PW-3) Dadana is brother of deceased. He deposed that I had been grazing my cattle in the forest. When I returned back, I came to know that

appellant had killed my brother Jageshwar [since deceased]. I noticed injuries on the body of deceased.

(PW-4) Goutam Singh deposed that when I reached to my house, I noticed that Budhni Bai (PW-1) was weeping. I went to her house and

noticed that deceased was laying dead. Budhni Bai told me that appellant had killed deceased by Tangi. Thereafter, I informed other persons

because there was a night hence, report was lodged on the next day. Police seized plain earth and red earth vide seizure memo Ex-P-3 and I

signed the same.

(PW-6) Sitaram verified the fact that plain earth and red earth collected before him vide seizure memo Ex-P-3 and I signed the same.

(PW-8) is witness of seizure. He deposed that sub-Inspector called me at the Police Station. He enquired before me from the accused.

Accused/appellant was in the Police Station. He was having Tangi with him. Accused told the Inspector that I am handing over Tangi. Police

recorded his statement [Ex-P11] and I signed the same. Station House Officer [Incharge] seized Tangi and Shirt of the appellant vide seizure

memo Ex.P.12 and I signed the same.

(PW-5) R.K. Mishra, conducted post-mortem of the deceased. He deposed that I noticed incised wound on the neck of the deceased 20 cm

length x 8 cm deep and 6 cm wide. Artery and spinal cord were cut. He further deposed that one injury on the body of deceased and the

deceased was died due to aforesaid injury. It was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon.

(PW-9) Virendra Singh, is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that I was posted as SHO Incharge Police Station Jaitpur. On 10.07.2004

Budhni Bai lodged oral report at the Police Station and I registered the FIR which is Ex.P12 and I signed the same. Thereafter, I registered merg

on the basis of FIR which is Ex-14 and signed the same. After report, accused/appellant came to Police Station, he was having Tangi with him. He

was alone. He told me that he had killed deceased Jageshwar by Tangi and produced the same. I recorded his memorandum [Ex-P11] and I

signed the same. I seized Tangi from his possession vide seizure memo Ex-P-12 and signed the same. Blood was there. Accused was arrested

vide arrest memo Ex-P14. I prepared spot map (Ex.P15) and I signed the same. I also seized plain earth and red earth vide seizure memo [Ex-P-

3] and I signed the same. Clothes of accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P16. I signed on the same. I recorded the statements of Budhni

Bai, Bhagwandeen, Smt. Gummanbai, Acchelal and Goutam Singh. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL.

Report lodged by Budhni Bai [PW-1] is Ex.-P13 it was lodged on 10.07.2004 at 9 O''clock in the morning. Incident is dated 09.07.2004 at 6

O''clock in the evening. It is mentioned in the report which was lodged by (PW-1) that the appellant had inflicted two blows by Tangi on the neck

of the deceased due to which, deceased was died.

FSL report is [Ex-P-20]. As per aforesaid report, on Tangi and Shirt which was worn wearing by the accused at the time of incident, human

blood was found.

(PW-1) Budhni Bai, is eye witness of the incident. She was present on the spot at the time of incident. The apex Court in the case of Deny

Bora vs. State of Assam reported in (2014) 14 SCC 42 has held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of eye witness, if it is fully

reliable.

As we find, the conviction wholly rests on the sole testimony of PW-14. It is well settled in law that conviction can be based on the testimony

of a singular witness. It has been held in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [5]

9........... 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, 1872. But, if

there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration.

The same principle has been reiterated in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra[6] by stating that it is open to a competent court to fully and completely

rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.

The evidence of (PW-1) Budhni Bai after scrutiny is fully reliable and trustworthy. The appellant himself had gone to the Police Station and he

told the SHO that he had killed the deceased. He also handed over Tangi from which he had killed the deceased. On Tangi and Shirt which the

appellant were wearing at the time of incident, blood stains were found, as per FSL report [Ex-P-18]. Virendra Singh [PW-9] IO verified the fact

that accused/appellant himself came to Police Station Jaitpur and told him that he had killed the deceased. Appellant had also handed over Tangi.

This fact has been further proved by [PW-8] Raghvendra, who is independent witness that accused was present in the Police Station and he told

the IO that he had killed the deceased.

From the aforesaid evidence, this fact has been proved that appellant had killed the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. We are

not in agreement with the arguments advanced by counsel for appellant. Appellant had gone at the house of Jageshwar [since deceased] with Tangi

i.e. deadly weapon. He made a demand of Chicken and the deceased did not give Chicken, then he had inflicted two blows of Tangi on the neck

of deceased which is vital part. Dr. Mishra [PW-5] has described artery and spinal cord were cut. There was incised wound on the neck of the

deceased. Appellant used sufficient force to kill the deceased. He had gone at the house of deceased with deadly weapon. Hence, in our opinion,

intention and motive of the appellant was to kill the deceased. The act of the appellant would not cover under the exception of Section 300 of IPC.

In this view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC

and awarded proper sentence. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.