The testimony of a single eyewitness is not sufficient to convict an accused of murder unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

1. 1. Appellant Radhakishan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dates 14th Feb., 1985, by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, convicting him Under Sections 302 & 447, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for offence Under Section 302, IPC; and three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment for offence Under Section 447, IPC.

2. On a Parcha-Bayan of one Smt. Dankha, a case was registered by the SHO, PS, Tonk. In her said statement, she stated that her husband Lala had two wives, and the second wife was Mst. Bhoori, mother of Radhakishan accused, and that Lala had divided his land and given it to her. Radha Kishan son of Mst. Bhoori wanted to have forcible possession over the said land. On 28th Nov., 1983, at about 10 a.m., Mst. Kalyani wife of Radhakishan and his son Ramesh came to field with a tractor and wanted to plough the field forcibly. Badri son of Mst. Dankha, and his friend Gopal Gujar were restraining them from ploughing the filed. She (informant) also reached the field and asked them not to plough the field. At that time, Radhakishan, his wife Mst. Kalyani, and his son Ramesh armed with lathis were standing in the field. Radhakishan inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Gopal Gujar, who fell down on the ground and died instantaneously. Mst. Kalyani also inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Badri and, Radhakishan and Ramesh also inflicted one blow each on Badri, who also fell down on the ground. Radhakishan then inflicted one lathi blow on her (informant) knee. On this parcha-Bayan, a case was registered Under Sections 307, 302 & 34, IPC.

3. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a challan against Radhakishan, Ramesh and Mst. Kalyani.

4. The Trial court framed charges against the accused person Under Section 447, 302, 303/34, 307, 307/34, 323 & 323/34, IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Mst. Kalyani and Ramesh of all the charges framed against them. He only found accused Radhakishan guilty of offences & sentenced him as mentioned above. He, however, acquitted Radhakishan of the charges Under Sections 307, 307/34, 323 & 323/34, IPC.

6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire case rests on the statement of Kajod PW 8 and that the other alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Badri PW3, Mst. Dankha PW 4 and Ladu PW 5 have not supported the prosecution story, and as such, they have been declared hostile. As such, according to the learned Counsel, the conviction of the appellant has been passed solely on the basis of statement of Kajod PW 8. With regard to this witness, it was argued by him that his statement is not reliable, and no conviction can be based on his statement.

7. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor has supported the judgement of the trial court and argued that the statement of Kajod PW 8 is of sterling worth, and the conviction passed against the accused-appellant on the basis of his statement, is correct.

8. We have perused the statement of Kajod PW 8. In his examination in-chief, he has stated that he had seen Radhakishan inflicting lathi-blows on the head of Gopal Gujar, and that the incident had taken place at the field of Badri. That field, according to this witness, was being ploughed by Radha Kishan with a tractor, and Gopal and Badri were also there. This witness did not know what talk had taken place between the parties, nor had he seen any body inflicting blows to Gopal or Badri. This witness was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has said that his field is not near the field of of Badri, which is at a distance of about 7-8 miles, and that, the had witnessed the incident while going to his field. He did not know whether Radhak