Point of Law: There is no legal impediment for convicting a person on sole testimony of eye-witness, but if there is doubt about testimony, Court will insist on corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since both the above criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 28-4-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No.H-21/2016 and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them as under: -

3. Appellant in Cr.A.No.706/2018 namely, Ku. Saraswati Yadu (A-1) and appellant in Cr.A.No.752/2018 namely, Ghanaram @ Julwa Yadu (A-2) have assailed their conviction for offence under Section 302/302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by way of these appeals.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant Ku. Saraswati Yadu (A-1) is the daughter of appellant Ghanaram @ Julwa Yadu (A-2) from his first wife namely Vimla Bai. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18-2-2016 at 3.00 p.m. under Police Station Simga at Village Duldula, in furtherance of their common intention, the two appellants herein assaulted Rajaram Yadu by farsa and lathi by which he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot which is said to have been witnessed by Om Prakash Yadu (PW-1) & Kanhaiya Yadav (PW-2). It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter, Om Prakash Yadu (PW-1) informed to Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin) that on 18-2-2016 at 11.00 a.m., he had gone for grazing cattle and while grazing cattle at Duldula Khar near factory, Rajaram (deceased), who belongs to his village, was also grazing cattle near the field of Shriram Sahu, then at about 3.00 p.m., accused/appellant Ghanaram @ Julwa Yadu (A-2) armed with farsa and accused/appellant Saraswati (A-1) armed with lathi came on the spot on the motorcycle and abused and assaulted deceased Rajaram Yadu. Om Prakash Yadu (PW-1) informed to Kanhaiya Yadav (PW-2) who also came and both have seen the incident. Thereafter, Ghanaram (A-2) fled away from the spot in the motorcycle driven by Saraswati (A-1) and Om Prakash Yadu (PW-1) went to his Village Duldula and informed to Liluram Yadu (PW-3) & Ramesh Yadu (PW-4) – sons of deceased Rajaram.

5. Morgue was registered vide Ex.P-1 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2. Thereafter, panchnama was conducted vide Ex.P-6. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Aditya Verma (PW-14) vide Ex.P-16 and cause of death was reported to be brain damage and blood loss and death was homicidal in nature. Spot maps were prepared vide Exs.P-3 & P-5 and memorandum statement of Ghanaram (A-2) was recorded on 22-7-2016 vide Ex.P-9 pursuant to which iron farsa without handle on which blood-like stains were present, one bloodstained vest and one old blanket were seized vide Ex.P-10. One motorcycle was seized from accused Saraswati (A-1) vide Ex.P-11. Seized articles were sent for forensic examination to the FSL, Raipur from where reports Exs.P-24 & P-29 were received. According to the FSL report Ex.P-29, no blood was found on the articles seized from accused Ghanaram (A-2) i.e. farsa and other articles, however, according to the FSL report Ex.P-24, blood was found on the articles (A1, A2, A3, A4 & A5) seized from the body of the deceased.

6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Thereafter, after usual investigation, the appellants wer