The quality and reliability of testimony from a sole eye-witness are crucial for a conviction based solely on that testimony.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.:--

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 03.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Session Case No.1/2013 by which learned Judge convicted the accused-appellant for offences under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, ordered to further undergo a sentence of one year simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.2012, a written report was submitted by one Parmanand Swami at Police Station Ramsinghpur stating therein that the marriage of his sister Sulochana @ Deva was solemnized with accused appellant Subhash Chand about 20 years ago. After some years of marriage, accused Subhash Chand started maltreating and harassing his sister and therefore Panchayat was called to resolve the matter but due to non-settlement of dispute, Smt. Sulochana left her matrimonial home and started living at her parents' house for about two years. Thereafter Panchayat meeting was again held in which the accused Subhash Chand agreed to bring back sister of the complainant but the accused again started misbehaving with Smt. Sulochana and also subjected her to cruelty and also raised doubts on her character. It was further alleged in the complaint that the behaviour of the accused was also not good towards his children. He did nothing to earn livelihood for last 4-5 months and used to gamble. In order to maintain her and family, the sister of the complainant used to do stitching and other miscellaneous work for livelihood. On 16.09.2012, the complainant again tried to convince the accused Subhash Chand through Panchayat but the accused got annoyed and threatened the complainant to face the consequence. Few days prior to death of his sister, the accused even stopped permitting the complainant to talk to his sister and nephews. The complainant alleged that his sister was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and was murdered by them.

3. On the basis of the above report, the Police registered the FIR against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 498A & 302 IPC and started investigation. After usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet only against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Sections 306 IPC.

4. The case was committed for trial before the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities & dowry Cases), Sriganganagar where the prosecution filed an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court also framed charge for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in all. Thereafter the statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused- appellant examined three witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3.

6. At conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities & dowry Cases), Sriganganagar vide judgment dated 03.02.2015 acquitted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 306 IPC but convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC and passed sentence mentioned above.

7. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia, Adv., learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel argued that the prosecution primarily relies upon the testimony of sole eye-witness Rakesh Kumar (PW/7). He submits that so-called eye-witness Rakesh Kumar, son of the deceased, was introduced later on as eye-witness of the incident and his statement was recor