Point of Law: There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness. That is logic of section 134 of Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the four appellants/accused persons under Section 374(2) of CrPC questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 04/07/2012 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 139/2011 whereby they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. Since appellant No. 2 Mangal Toppo has died, the instant appeal, filed on his behalf, has already been abated by order of this Court passed today separately, as such, we proceed to consider the case of appellants No. 1, 3 and 4.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 11-12/03/2011 in between 8 PM to 6 AM, the appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Leelavati with knife and thereafter caused her death by strangulating her and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution, is that, in the evening of 11/03/2021, Leelavati took off from her house stating that she is going to invite the villagers for the occasion of her son's engagement ceremony. When she did not return to her house after a while, her son Nandu (P.W.-1) went out in her search and he found her mother Leelavati at the house of Samaribai (not examined). After asking Leelavati to return home, Nandu (P.W.-1) went back to his house but Leelavati did not come home at night. Thereafter, in the morning of 12/03/2011, when Urvashi (P.W.-2) went towards the fields to pick mahua, she found the dead body of Leelavati lying in the field of Raghunath pursuant to which, she went and informed about the same to Loharsai (A-3), who further informed Leelavati's son Nandu (P.W.1). Loharsai (A-3) and Nandu (P.W.-1) went to Raghunath's field and found the body of Leelavati lying under the mahua tree and there were cut injuries all over her body, there was a stab wound on her stomach and her head had been crushed by stone.

4. Nandu (P.W.-1) informed the matter at Police Station Lailunga on the basis of which Investigating Officer Shri C.L. Sidar (P.W.-9) lodged first information report against unknown person vide Ex. P/2 and also registered merg intimation vide Ex. P/1 and the counter nalasi was sent to the concerned Magistrate vide Ex. P/12. For conducting panchnama, summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex. P/10 and upon the recommendation of the panchas, the dead body of Leelavati was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (P.W.- 8) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/11), cause of death is said to be multi-faceted i.e. intra-abdominal haemorrhage with injury of visera, intra-cerebral haemorrhage with brain injury and asphyxia as a result of throttling and the nature of the death is said to be homicidal. From the spot, bloodstained stone and soil and one ring made of iron was seized vide Ex. P/14 and the said seized articles were though sent for chemical examination but the FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, the four appellants herein were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and brought on record 21 documents. The statements of the appellants/accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence.

6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Leelavati to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellants/accused persons to be the perpetrators of the crime in question, proceeded to conv