S.K. Gangele, J.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 7th January 2009, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Session Trial No.
264/2008. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The Trial Court held the appellant guilty for
the aforesaid offence and awarded sentence of life.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased Mohanlal had made a demand of money from appellant Kalyan, on the aforesaid event the appellant
abused him
and inflicted blow of Bullam on the neck of the deceased. Deceased was died on spot. F.I.R was lodged. The police conducted investigation and filed
charge-sheet.
3. Appellant abjured his guilt during trial and pleaded innocence. Trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of alleged eye-witness P.W-7 is not reliable, in view of his cross-examination.
Except this evidence there is no other direct evidence against the appellant. Hence the Trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellant
guilty for the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In alternate learned counsel has submitted that offence of the appellant would fall under Section 304
Part I, I.P.C if the evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted.
5. Contrary to this learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is sufficient direct and corroborative evidence against the appellant. He was
armed with the deadly weapon. He had inflicted grievous injury on the person of the deceased. He was died on the spot. Hence,Trial Court has
awarded proper sentence. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Badru Ram and others v.
State of Rajasthan reported in [(2015) 11 SCC 476].
6. P.W. 7 Parwati Bai, is the eye-witness. She deposed that Mohanlal was my nephew. The house of the appellant is in front of my house. Appellant
and deceased both had cordial relations. On the date of incident I was at my house. Appellant was abusing the deceased. Deceased had asked his
wages from the appellant, on this count appellant abused the deceased. At that time appellant ran towards the deceased armed with Bullam and
inflicted blow of Bullam on the neck of deceased. Appellant ran away from the spot. Deceased was died after sometime. On cross-examination she
further deposed that when abuses were going on, I was there and there was no light on the date of incident. After hearing abuses I came from the
house. Appellant had Bullam on his hand and the deceased was lying on the spot. Appellant ran way from the spot. Munna told me that appellant who
was having Bullam ran way from the spot.
7. Rambabu (P.W. 8) another witness deposed that I heard the cry of Parvatibai. I reached at the spot running and saw that deceased was lying. I
informed the family members of the deceased. Other persons were also reached on the spot.
8. P.W. 9 Narayan also deposed that he had heard cry of Parwatibai that come here to save the deceased. When I reached the deceased was died.
9. P.W. 1 who is witness of seizure of Bullam turned hostile. P.W. 2 deposed that Rambabu told him that appellant had in flicted a blow of Bullam on
the neck of deceased. Then I went to the spot. I and Chowkidar went to Police Station and lodged the report (Ex. P-4), signed the same and Police
prepared the Punchnama of the dead body. Plain and read earth was seized vide Ex. P-9. I signed the seizure memo Ex. P-9. On the basis of
memorandum of appellant Bullam was seized vide Ex. P-9 from the house of appellant. I signed both the documents. 10. P.W. 4 deposed that he
reached on the spot.
10. P.W. 4 deposed that he reached on the spot. Deceased was lying.
11. P.W.6 Dr. Sangita Singh performed the postmortem of the deceased. She deposed that I noticed one injury on the Thoracic Cavity on supra
clavicular region 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. After dissection of injury I noticed that carotid artery was ruptured and upper part of left lung was also ruptured. I
opined that the injury which was sustained by the appellant could be caused by Bullam seized from the appellant. There were injuries on clavicle bone
also.
12. I.O. deposed that I recorded Marg intimation and thereafter F.I.R (Ex. P-7), I prepared the spot map Ex. P.8 and seized plain and red earth
from the spot vide Ex. P-9. I recorded the statements of witnesses on 23.4.2008. Appellant was arrested, on his memorandum (Ex. P-1) Bullam was
seized vide Ex. P-2 Seizure Memo.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deny Bora v. State of Assam reported [(2014) 14 SCC 42] in regard to conviction on the basis of
testimony of sole witness has held as under :
“14. 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) that:
“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.â€
14. In the present case P.W. 7 is eye-witness. She deposed that appellant had inflicted a blow of Bullam. In cross-examination she admitted that
appellant ran away from the spot. P.W. 8 is another witness who deposed that I had heard her cry. She was saying that somebody was killing
Mohanlal. Narayan also deposed that P.W. 7 Parvati was crying. F.I.R was lodged by P.W. 2 at Police Station which is Ex. P-7, which was lodged
within near about 4 hours. From the possession of the appellant Bullam was seized. Doctor who performed postmortem deposed that she noticed one
injury on the Therocic.
15. In such circumstances on the basis of aforesaid, in our opinion the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt is in accordance with law.
16. The next question is that whether the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304Â Part I of I.P.C. In the present case the
appellant inflictedgrievous blow on the neck of deceased on vital part. There is no evidence that altercation had taken place. Deceased had asked for
his wages from the appellant. The neck is vital part. Arteries were damaged. Deceased was dead on spot. Hence, in our opinion the act of the
appellant and the evidence against the appellant is not sufficient to hold that the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I
of I.P.C.
17. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
