JUDGMENT

Chandrashekhar, J. - The accused-appellants, who are agnates of husband of the informant, were sent up for trial on the charge under sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have also been charged under section 341 and under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. In S.T. Case No.07/2007, the appellants and Aghnu Munda have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The accused persons, namely, Rajendra Munda and Rajesh Munda have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

4. The charge under section 4/5 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act has failed.

5. The informant of this case is daughter-in-law of Biglahi Devi, the deceased. On the basis of her fardbeyan, which was recorded on 04.07.2006 at about 18:00 hrs. at village Sadma Kathaltoli, Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2006 has been lodged against Thakuwa Munda, Rajesh Munda, Rajendra Munda, Sawna Munda, Aghnu Munda and Barti Devi. In her fardbeyan the informant has stated that in the afternoon of 04.07.2006, at about 3:00 p.m., the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, variously armed with iron rod, tangi, lathi and dabia, entered her house and started abusing her mother-in-law who was sitting in the courtyard. They were calling her daain and accusing her of practicing witchcraft on their son, daughter and daughter-in-law. They have assaulted her mother-in-law indiscriminately due to which she fell on the ground and died. On her raising hulla, several villagers had assembled there and the accused persons fled away.

6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the informant is PW-6. The prosecution has projected her as an eyewitness.

7. In the court, the informant has given a similar narration of the incident as has been recorded in her fardbeyan. She has named all the appellants as the persons who have assaulted her mother-in-law. She has stated that at the time when her mother-in-law was assaulted by the appellants no other family member was at home; her father-in-law was ploughing a nearby field.

8. The prosecution witness Jitu Munda PW-1 has been declared hostile and Laxman Munda PW-2 has deposed in the court that no seizure was affected in his presence. Rajendra Munda PW-3 and Mahendra Munda-PW-4 are sons of Biglahi Devi and Mukun Munda PW- 5 is her husband. They are not the eyewitnesses. PW-3 and PW-4 both have returned home at about 4:00 p.m. and PW-5 has come to the place of occurrence after he was informed about the incident by the informant. They have seen the dead body of Biglahi Devi with several injuries on her person.

9. By now, it is well settled that conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of testimony of a solitary witness, if his evidence inspires confidence. The requirement in law is that evidence of the sole witness should be of such sterling quality that it leaves no manner of doubt on complicity of the accused in the crime. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact. In "Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand", (2003) 2 SCC 401 the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"10. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness."

10. During her cross-examination, the informant h