Appellant acquitted.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

Appellant stand convicted by the Court learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla, vide judgment impugned dated 08.06.2012 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC and vide order dated 12.06.2012, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment of fine, has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. The period of detention already undergone, has been directed to be set off. For confirmation of the sentence awarded, record of the case has been submitted. Same stand registered as Criminal Reference No.03/2012. Aggrieved by the judgment impugned and order, instant appeal has been filed.

2. Police has swung into action on receipt of report, EXPW-1/1, lodged by PW-1, Abdul Gaffar Ahangar, husband of the deceased, to the effect that on 28.04.2008, he (PW-1) had gone to Village Rohama for purchase of household goods. His mother, Mst. Mukhti, and his wife, Mst. Sakina, went to a nearby forest for getting firewood. Raj Mohammad Piswal (accused) with the intention to kill his wife, was hiding in the forest and abruptly caught hold of his wife and attacked her with an axe repeatedly and killed her. On the basis of said report, case was registered as FIR No.14/2008 P/S Panzullah. On completion of investigation, charge sheet (challan) has been presented to the effect that during investigation accused is established to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 RPC.

3. Charge against the accused has been framed by the trial court on 19.09.2008 to the following effect:

“That you (accused) on 28.04.2008 at forest Wilanwar had hit Mst. Sakina wife of the complainant with an axe and injured her. She succumbed to injuries right on spot.”

4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case, out of listed 17 witnesses, produced 13 witnesses. Listed witnesses No.8, 13 and 14 have been dropped.

5. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused has been examined under Section 342 Cr. P. C wherein he denied complicity in the crime and claimed to be innocent.

6. After hearing both learned PP as well as counsel for the defence in terms of Section 273 Cr. P. C, Court noticed that it is not the case of no evidence, following mandate of Section 274 Cr. P. C, accused has been asked to enter upon the defence. In defence, he has produced two witnesses.

7. On perusal of the records, PW-2, Mst. Mukhti, mother-in-law of Mst. Sakina (deceased), appears to be the only eye witness to the occurrence. Learned trial court in the judgment impugned has recorded that testimony of Mst. Mukhti appears to be natural and trustworthy. She while saving the deceased has also sustained injuries, statement of Mst. Mukhti, PW-2, stands the test of truth. No material has been brought on record which would make the statement of only eye witness, PW-2, Mst. Mukhti, doubtful or shaky and even if there are some minor discrepancies that would not make her statement untrustworthy and not reliable more so when she is a simple illiterate village lady who had lost her daughter-in-law in the hands of the accused. It is also recorded that from all probabilities judged on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is every reason to believe that the witness Mst. Mukhti has given a true statement of facts with regard to the occurrence on the fateful day of 28.04.2008.

8. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle i.e. conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a sole witness but the golden thread for accepting testimony of a sole witness revolves round credibility and reliability.

9. Before coming to the credibility and reliability regarding testimony of PW-2, Mst. Mukhti, mother-in-law of the deceased, it would be quite advantageous to refer to the case titled “Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra” (2016) 10 SCC 537. What has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding credibility of the witnes