IMPORTANT POINT : Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary eye witness provided the witness is trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), in File No. 29/Sessions titled “State versus Sanjeev Kumar & Anr” whereby the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for commission of offence under section 302 RPC. Besides, the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month for commission of offence under section 341 RPC.

2. The aforesaid judgment has been assailed on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has not taken into consideration the major contradictions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded before the trial court. It is also stated that the disclosure statement and recovery effected in the case are inconsequential and in no manner connect the appellants with the commission of crime. Besides this, it is also averred that the medical evidence produced by the prosecution runs contrary to the version of the eye witnesses. It is also stated that the Police for reasons best known to them, have suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused party.

Contentions of Appellants:

3. Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that the clothes of the witnesses i.e. PW-2 Sheela Devi and PW-3 Bikram Singh were not blood stained, which clearly demonstrates that PW-2 Sheela Devi & PW-3 Bikram Singh were not present on spot. It was further urged that the conduct of PW-3 Bikram Singh in not informing the Police about the occurrence is an unnatural conduct, which further raises doubt about the credibility of the said witness. Mr. Gupta further argued that the learned trial court has erred in law by placing reliance upon the statement of PW-4 Arjun Singh, as he himself had not seen the occurrence. He further submitted that there was no evidence against the appellant No. 2 and lastly that even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt still the appellants cannot be convicted under section 302 RPC but under section 304-II RPC, as in the instant case, single blow was inflicted upon the deceased and the deceased died after 12 days of occurrence.

Contentions of Respondents:

4. Per contra, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy.AG vehemently argued that there was sufficient evidence placed on record in the form of eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 Bikram Singh and PW-4 Arjun Singh for conviction of the appellants and the ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further argued that the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery of weapon of offence clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants, as such, there is no infirmity in the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court.

5. Heard and perused the record.

Case of Prosecution:

6. As per the prosecution story, father of the deceased, Kabla Singh lodged a written complaint with the SHO Police Station, Kathua stating therein that he was having a dispute with regard to the boundary of the land with one Bal Krishan S/o Karam Chand R/o Bhagyal. On that day, when his son was working in his land, Bal Krishan stopped him and altercation took place between both of them, that was not tolerated by his nephew i.e. Sanjeev Kumar, as such, at around 4.30 PM, Sanjeev Kumar, who was armed with drat and Raj Kumar with criminal intention stopped his son, Harbans Singh on link road Bhagyal. Raj Kumar caught hold of Harbans Singh and Sanjeev Kumar assaulted his son in order to kill him and inflicted 2-3 blows of drat at the neck of his son (Harbans Singh). On hearing the noise, few persons came on spot and accused persons ran away. This information was received by the Police Station, Kathua at around 7.20 PM and FIR bearing No