A single eyewitness can suffice for conviction if credible, and extra-judicial confessions can be valid evidence if trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This conviction appeal is filed by the appellant – sole accused – Mahendrasinh Vaghela, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur in Sessions Case no. 7 of 2013, wherein, the appellant came to be tried for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The case of the prosecution leading to conviction of the appellant – accused is as follows:-

2.1 The appellant accused Mahendrasinh Vaghela and deceased Vijaysinh were real brothers and residing in the same village namely Bhanpur, Tal.: Hadad, Dist.: Banaskantha. The deceased Vijaysinh was residing with his family along with his parents independently. Both the brothers doing farming works in their respective fields. The relations of both of them were not cordial. It is in these background facts, on 15.11.2012 at about 6-00 PM, the appellant accused elder brother of the deceased, killed the deceased Vijaysinh, inflicting several blows of axe on his head of the deceased. According to prosecution case, the farm labourer PW-5 – Dharmabhai Shaklabhai was the sole eye-witness of the incident and at the time of incident, he was doing farming work on the field of one Joravarsinh. The witness PW-5 saw the incident at the distance of 15 to 20 meter and despite of his request made to the accused not to kill the deceased, the accused did not hid the request and brutally killed his brother.

2.2 The sole eye-witness Dharmabhai Shaklabhai immediately rushed to the village, where near the village dairy, he informed PW-11 about the incident of killing. The father of the deceased PW-3, Pruthvirajsinh Vaghela at the time of incident was on the way to attend dead ceremony of the person, who died. The accused when he left the place of incident, met the PW-3 and on asking by his father PW-3 about why he was here, the accused, replied that, due to personal work he is going to house. The PW-3 father was informed by the village people that his son was killed by the appellant accused and deceased was lying in the pool of blood near the farm of Joravarsinh. The father and others went to the place of incident where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and having suffered multiple head injuries and he was found unconscious. The appellant accused came at the place and confessed about the act of killing before the witnesses and father PW-3. The motive behind the murder was that before two year of prior to the incident, the deceased assaulted the appellant accused and keeping grudge of the said incident, the accused killed his brother mercilessly.

2.3 PW-3 and others took the deceased nearby hospital, where he declared ‘brought dead’. The PW-3 father lodged an FIR with the Hadad Police Station and disclosed the aforementioned facts in his FIR (Exh. 17). The Investigating Officer PW-10, sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. He took the visit of the place of incident and in the presence of independent witnesses drew the panchnama of the incident and collected the blood samples for FSL purpose. The I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses, including the statement of PW-5 – eye witness. He arrested the accused and at the instance of accused and in presence of independent panchas, seized and recovered the weapon axe and drew the panchnama in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After obtaining the copy of the PM report, sent the muddamal including the weapon for examination of chemical examination and finally filed the chargesheet against the accused for the murder. The Magistrate committed the case to the court of session under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. Upon committal, the Sessions Trial being Sessions Case No. 7 of 2013 came to be registered.

2.4 After due framing of charge and upon the accused pleading not guilty, the trial commenced before the Sessions Judge. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 27 documen