Point of law: it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – original accused under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Godhara (hereinafter referred to as “the Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No.179 of 2009 dated 15/10/2010, by which the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein - original accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 452 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as “IPC” for short).

For the offence under section 302 of IPC, the Sessions Court sentenced the appellant / accused to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of deposit of fine, directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

For the offence under section of 452 of the IPC, the Sessions Court sentenced the appellant accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of deposit of fine, directed to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Court directed the appellant accused to undergo both the sentences concurrently and to grant benefit of set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as under:- The complainant – Rakeshbhai Rayjibhai Pagi lodged the FIR being CR No.I-87 of 2009 with Kothamba Police Station on 11/07/2009 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 452, 324 and 504 of IPC and under section 135 of Gujarat Police Act, alleging inter-alia that on 11/07/2009, he, his father and his mother – deceased Madhuben were sitting in the middle room of their house and his father Rayjibhai was cutting potato and at that time in the evening at about 19.30 hours, the accused – Babu Ratna Pagi entered into his house with open knife in his hand abusing his mother and father and he inflicted knife blow on the left arm of his mother – deceased. It is further stated that as such, the deceased in order to save herself, went into the kitchen wherein the accused caught-hold of her and brought her in the middle room and inflicted blow of knife on her chest. As such, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at the very moment and the accused also bitten his father on his left ankle and injured him.

2.1. After the registration of the FIR, the instigation was set into motion by the investigating officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained certificate of the injured, postmortem note of the deceased, arrested the accused, prepared inquest panchnama, etc.

2.2. On completion of the investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, the investigating officer filed Chargesheet against the accused under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lunawada and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.1263 of 2009.

2.3. The case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate, after providing copies of the Chargesheet papers to the accused free of costs, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and the case was registered as Sessions Case No.179 of 2009 in the Sessions Court, Godhara.

2.4. Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed Charge against the accused at Ex.3 and Plea of the accused was recorded under section 228(2) of the Cr.P.C. at Ex.4. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. Therefore, the trial court conducted the trial in accordance with law.

2.5. The prosecution produced the oral as well as documentary evidence, more particularly, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and produced in all 14 documents.

2.6. Thereafter, Further Statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Pr