Honble ANAND, J.– The appellants alongwith 10 others were tried for various offences including offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. in respect of an occurrence dated 11th June,1984 in which deceased Mohan Lal received fatal injuries. The Trial Court vide judgment of Ist June,1985,acquitted two co- accused but convicted 11 for various offences including offences under sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. All the 11 convicts filed appeal in the High Court against their conviction and sentence. On 9th December,1989, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of 8 convicts and acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt.So far as the three appellants herein are concerned, their conviction was maintained for the offences under section 302/149 I.P.C.The High Court opined that these three appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with ``other unknown persons with the common object of committing murder of Mohan Lal as alleged by the prosecution.By special leave, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2) We have heard Mr. Keshwani, learned counsel appearing for the appe- llants and Mr. U.N. Bachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent and examined the record.

(3) The Trial court as well as the High Court relied upon the testimony of Swami P.W. 8, brother of Mohan Lal and Saraswati,P.W. 9, the mother of the deceased. It was found by the courts below that on the fateful day of 11th June, 1984 at about 8.00 a.m., the appellants armed with guns and a farsa attacked the deceased while he was proceeding with his brother Swami P.W. 8 towards the betel grove. The trial court as well as the High Court found that P.W.8 and PW9 had given a correct account relating to the assault and while P.W. 9 had specifically stated that appellants Jivan Lal and Halkoi fired upon the deceased, Dashrath hit him with a farsa.P.W.8 Swami has corroborated P.W.9 by deposing that he had seen these accused alongwith others variously armed by the side of his brother who was lying on the ground.The submission of Mr. Keshwani that the courts below committed an error in relying upon the testimony of P.W. 9, the solitary eye witness, as according to him, she was an interested witness and since she had implicated 10 other accused also, her testimony could not be relied upon, does not appeal to us. He referred to certain judgments of this Court to urge that conviction could not be based on the testimony of sole eye witness, who has been disbelieved in respect of a part of the occurrence or who has been found to be otherwise interested in the prosecution.

(4) It is found from a perusal of the record that the evidence of Saraswati P.W. 9 in so far as the part attributed to the appellants is concerned, is cogent and consistent and is also corroborated by P.W. 8 as well as by the medical evidence.The names of 3 appellants were also clearly disclosed in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-16.It is settled law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eye witness provided that testimony is found to be wholly reliable. Where the testimony of such a witnesses is partly reliable, prudence requires that corroboration of the testimony of that witness should be sought for from independent sources to base the conviction. Indeed, P.W. 9 is the mother of the deceased.She is, therefore, an interested witness. Prudence, as such requires that we look for co- rroboration of her testimony.We find that such corroboration is amply provided for both by P.W. 8 and Dr. Ramesh Kumar P.W. 10 who had performed the Autopsy on the dead body. Both the Trial Court and the High Court committed no error in relying upon her testimony which has been corroborated by other evidence on the record to convict the appellants. The appreciation of evidence by both the courts below is proper and we have not been persuaded to take a different view. Merely because, 10 other persons named by her as accused were acquitted,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document