A reliable witness's testimony can sustain a conviction despite contradictions from others, emphasizing quality over quantity in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2005 passed by the 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surajpur, District Sarguja, CG in Sessions Trial No. 405/2004 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant/Bechani Bai (PW-7) resides with her husband Alam Sai (deceased) at Village Sarswatipur. Her husband is an employee of SECL Kumda Collary. In the week of incident her husband was in the night shift and on the date of incident i.e. 04.07.2004 at about 11 hours Sukhram (present appellant) and Goverdhan (PW-6) both brothers were quarreling upon which Bechani Bai (PW-7) and Alam Sai (deceased) pacified them not to quarrel. Upon which the appellant became angry and assaulted the Alam Sai (deceased) on his head and he fell down in the courtyard became unconscious. The incident was witnessed by Devdhari (PW-2), Bilaso (PW-5), Kailaso Bai (PW- 3) and Dhanmet (PW-4). The incident was informed to Maansai (PW-13) and Jaikaran (PW-12) by the Bechani Bai (PW-7). The Alam Sai (deceased) was admitted in Vishrampur hospital and on the very same day, the FIR (Ex.D-1) was lodged at Police Station Vishrampur at 14:45 hours upon which offence under Section 307 IPC was registered and on the same day at 4:30 PM Alam Sai died in the hospital.

3. The investigation was set on motion, dead-body panchnama was prepared and postmortem was also conducted, spot map was prepared, blood stain, simple soil, blood stain sando baniyaan of deceased was seized from Bechani Bai in presence of witnesses. On the basis of memorandum of the appellant, bamboo stick was seized, the seized article was sent for chemical examination to FSL, report was received, the appellant was arrested, after completion of the investigation charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC under Crime No. 93/2004 was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, CG, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surajpur and was made over to the trial Court for trial. Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC who abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited as many as 19 documents. Statement of the accused under Section 131 of CrPC was recorded in which he denied the charge and claimed false implication.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to conviction is based upon solitary statement of Bechani Bai (PW-7) and she being interested witness cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction. He submits that all the other independent witnesses who alleged to have seen the evidence have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are majority of contradictions and omissions in the statement of Bechani Bai (PW-7) therefore, her statement cannot be termed to be of sterling quality. The conviction of the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He further submits that if the conviction of the appellant is not going to be set aside, at least the sen