The testimony of a single eye-witness can be sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case, but such testimony must be carefully scrutinized and corroborated by other evidence.

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted on the charge of patricide by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In a judgment delivered on 10th March 2004, in Sessions Case No. 228 of 2003 corresponding Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2003, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which he has been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. This appeal is against that judgment.

2. Case against the accused was started on the basis of written complaint filed by one Pilu Majhi, another son of the deceased victim on 20th June 1990 at 1 P.M. in Balarampur Police Station in the district of Purulia. Substance of his complaint is that on the preceding

night, that is in the night of 19th June 1990 at about 10 P.M. the accused was seen fighting with his father, Falari Majhi at their house with a stick which eventually killed the latter. On being informed by Kalu Majhi, he reached the residential house of his father. He saw the dead body of the father of the complainant was found lying on the veranda with blood on the floor and there were signs of injuries caused by a stick on his body. From the materials available, we find that Pilu Majhi was living in a separate house. The complaint records that Pilu Majhi had received the information of the fight from one Kalu Majhi, who went to Pilu Majhi’s residential house to inform him of the incident. There was no specific written complaint from Pilu Majhi and the officer of the police station had himself reduced the oral information of Pilu Majhi into writing forming the basis of the formal F.I.R., which was registered as Case No. 33/90 dated 28th June 1990. Pilu Maji has deposed as Prosecution Witness No. 1, whereas Kalu Majhi has been examined as the Prosecution Witness No. 4 in course of trial. Kalu Majhi is a nephew of the deceased.

3. In his complaint, the P.W. 1 explained the delay in lodging the complaint, stating that the occurence of the incident took place very late at night and it was raining heavily at that time. When he lodged the complaint, he was accompanied by two other villagers. The F.I.R. is in the regulation format, on the body of which itself the complaint has been recorded. The formal F.I.R. and the complaint in writing have been marked separately, as Exhibits ‘3’ and ‘2’ respectively. The police official who had taken down the complaint of the P.W. 1 was one B.B. Samaddar, a sub-inspector of Balarampur police station at the material point of time. As it appears from Exhibit ‘2’, the complaint was written in bengali and the same was read over to the complainant, and the complainant had admitted correctness of the recordal. Said B.B. Samaddar, however, had expired when actual trial was being conducted and there is evidence of one Chittaranjan Chatterjee, another sub-inspector of police to that effect. Chittaranjan Chatterjee has deposed as P.W. 6. At the time of his deposition he was

posted as an officer-in-charge at Jhalda police station. In course of his deposition he has sought to prove the written complaint (exhibit – 2) as well as formal F.I.R. (exhibit - 3) by proving the signature of B.B. Samaddar. On going through the Case Diary, he deposed that said B.B. Samaddar had conducted the investigation during which he visited the place of occurence, held inquest and prepared the sketch map. The rough sketch map with the index of the place of occurence has been marked ‘exhibit- 4’ whereas the carbon copy of the inquest report has been marked ‘exhibit – 5’. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had seized bloodstained earth and control earth, one Khatia, one bloodstained Katha (a sheet used as a wrapper) and a bloodstained dothi of the deceased. This seizure list has been marked ‘exhibit – 6’. These three exhibits, being ‘4’, ‘5’ and ‘6’ have also been proved by the P.W. 6, on the basis of h