important point
There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. The conviction was recorded and sentence imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Gobichettipalayam in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2002 dated 03.09.2002.

3.Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

The accused Kunju @ Balachandran is the resident of Ceylon Refugee Camp at Bhavanisagar. Sudhakaran (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) also was residing in the same Refugee Camp. Prior to the date of occurrence, the parents of the accused arranged to get his marriage with Selvi (PW-5). Betrothal ceremony was also over. The deceased fell in love with Selvi (PW-5). Two days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased met PW-5 and offered flower to her. PW-5 refused to receive the flower and told him that already her betrothal was held with the accused. This incident was informed to the accused.

On the date of occurrence i.e. on 28.2.2001, at about 6.50 p.m., the deceased along with two other friends, Stephen (PW-1) and Siva (PW-2) was proceeding to take bath at A.R.S. Canal. The accused came there and restrained the deceased by catching hold of his arm and dragged and assaulted him while abusing him in filthy language. He took out a Vettu Aruval (M.O.I.) from his hip and gave cuts on various parts of the body of the deceased. The deceased fell down, but the accused continued to inflict injuries all over the body. PWs 1 and 2, the other witnesses made a hue and cry. The people also gathered there. Therefore, the accused ran away from the scene place.

On witnessing this incident, P.W.2 immediately went to the house of the deceased and informed P.W.3, the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 came to the scene and found that his brother was gasping for his life.

Thereafter, PW-3 arranged for taking the injured to the Bhavanisagar Government Hospital, where first aid was given. Then, on receipt of the message from hospital, P.W.7 sub-Inspector of Police came to the hospital, recorded the statement (EX.P21) from PW-1. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 IPC. Since the injured was in a serious condition, he was taken to Coimbatore Government Hospital by PW.3. On the way, the injured died. On receipt of the death information Ex.P26, the Inspector of Police P.W.18 took up investigation and altered the case into one under Sections 341 and 302 IPC.

4.After that investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence, trial was conducted. Learned trial court considered the evidence on record and placing reliance on the evidence of PW2 recorded the conviction and imposed sentence as noted above. It is relevant to note that PW 1 who was the author of the First Information Report (in short the FIR) resiled from his statement recorded during investigation. The trial court noted that though to certain extent PW 1 departed from his statement during investigation, he accepted that three persons including the deceased and PW2 had gone to take bath but at that time the accused also came bare. Before the High Court, the stand taken before the trial court was reiterated. But the High Court did not find any substance and dismissed the appeal.

5.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the motive for the crime has not been established as the evidence of the girl does not show that she was being harassed by the deceased. Additionally, it is submitted that after PW 1 did not fully support the prosecution version and on the testimony of a single witness i.e. PW 2, the conviction should not have been recorded.

6.Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned ju