JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 848 of 1994 whereby the learned Judge had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under the provisions of section 304 Part II I.P.C. read with section 299 Clause (3) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27-3-1994 at about 10 p.m. deceased Laxman Salve after taking the meal went to the house of his neighbour for hearing the songs. His wife was inside the hut along with her children. After sometime, she heard her husband shouting by taking her name. Therefore, she went out and saw a quarrel between the appellant and her husband Laxman in which the appellant assaulted the deceased with fist blows and kicks on his chest and abdomen. She also saw the appellant twisting the genital organ of the deceased. She intervened and with the help of neighbours brought her husband to her house. He was not able to sit and, therefore, lied down. Within 10 to 20 minutes he died. Nanda lodged F.I.R. in the Police Station. The investigation started. The post-mortem examination was performed and after completing the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted and lastly he faced the trial in which he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Shri Sait, Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution case totally rested on the evidence of the wife of the deceased named Nanda. He pointed out that the independent witness, the neighbour Smt. Dhrupadabai did not support the prosecution case and, therefore the learned trial Judge had committed an error of coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter had further gone to commit the error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. According to Shri Sait, the appellant should have been acquitted.

3. In the alternative Shri Sait submitted that the sentence of R.I. for 10 years is too severe for the act which has been attributed to the appellant. He submitted that the sentence needs to be modified and reduced to the term undergone by the appellant.

4. Shri Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the order of conviction and sentence is correct, proper and legal because the evidence of the wife of the deceased Laxman was above board and that was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. He further submitted that R.I. for 10 years is adequate sentence keeping in view the fact that Laxman died on account of the assault at the hands of the appellant. He submitted that the appeal be dismissed.

5. This Court dismissed the submissions advanced by Shri Sait for the appellant that evidence of Nanda is not sufficient to warrant the conviction.

6. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Evidence Act" for convenience) provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proving any fact. Keeping in view this requirement of the evidence for proving the fact, it is well accepted principle of law that conviction can be safely based on the testimony of single witness. What is required is that the evidence of such witness should be sterling sound and should pass the test of truth if tested on the anvil of human experience. It should be of that quality which a reasonable person of ordinary prudence should believe and by believing it should come to a conclusion that the fact which the prosecution is obliged to prove has been proved. It should be of that quality which would be proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It should prove that the accused "must" have committed the crime for which he has been charged and for which he faced the trial. It shoul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document