IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction in a criminal case requires corroborative evidence, especially when eyewitness accounts conflict and the prosecution's case is built on a single witness's testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the judgment dated 22.01.1997, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Merta City in Sessions Case No.10/95 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

2. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the appellant firstly read the FIR that was registered pursuant to written report lodged by Babuda (PW-11) and apprised the Court about the case projected by the prosecution. Having read the FIR, learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been convicted essentially on the basis of testimony of Babuda (PW-11) and the fact that an axe was recovered from possession of appellant.

3. Inviting Court’s attention towards FSL report, learned counsel underscored that though human blood was found on the axe but said report remained inconclusive so far as blood group is concerned. According to him, human blood of any person can be applied on the axe at any time.

4. Learned counsel submitted that Babuda (PW-11) was not present on the spot or at the time of occurrence of the alleged offence as is evident from his deposition more particularly the part ^^eS ogka ij vk;k ftlls igys ukFkks dks idM+ pqds FksA (People had caught Natho before I could reach the scene of occurrence).

5. Learned counsel argued that all the eye witnesses including the injured eye-witness, Baksharam (PW-2) had turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution story. Hence, it is clear that the appellant’s conviction is based on improper appreciation of evidence of a person, who deposed altogether different from the deposition of all other persons available in the ‘Dera’.

6. It was also argued by Mr. Kumbhat that the FIR in question came to be registered after a delay of two days and if that the overall facts and circumstances of the case and testimony of all witnesses are considered, it would be clear that the story which the prosecution had portrayed, has totally failed, which does not inspire confidence.

7. He alternatively argued that even if the prosecution story is believed to be true, no motive of the appellant was proved to murder the deceased (Ghirkiya) and also that the axe blow was inflicted on spur of moment, as the incident arose suddenly from a trivial dispute, hence his conviction under Section 302 of IPC cannot be maintained.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the appellant had committed murder in broad daylight and in front of so many people and eyewitnesses and other prosecution witnesses have aptly proved his guilt. He added that the testimony of eyewitness Babuda (PW-11) cannot be ignored, who has completely supported the prosecution story.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Babuda (PW-11) was also an eye-witness and, therefore, if the prosecution story is supported by even one witness, it is enough and in case of an eye-witness, the prosecution is not required to establish motive.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Before adverting to the contention of rival parties, it would be appropriate to perceive the facts of the case projected by the prosecution in mind. According to the prosecution, a written report came to be lodged by complainant Babuda (PW-11), after 2 days of the death of deceased Ghirkiya that he has been murdered in broad daylight in ‘Dera’ at around 2-2:30 p.m.. According to the written report, a mutual scuffle between Baksharam (PW-2) and deceased Girkiya, took place for the custody of their mother’s box, during which Nathu (present appellant), interjected and inflicted one axe blow on the head of the deceased and the other blow hit Baksaram on his arm.

12. The weapon of offence, the axe was recovered in furtherance of disclosure statement dated 23.04.1995 given by the appellant under section 27 of th