JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellants, namely, Jai Prakash Singh, Sumeshwar Singh @ Guduwa, Mohan Singh and Munarik Singh have been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-each under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-each under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been convicted under section 341/34, section 342/34, section 323/34 and section 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, no separate sentence has been awarded for the aforesaid offences.

2. Jhalo Devi, the mother of Subhash Singh, is the informant of this case. In the night of 08th October, 2010 at about 11:00 am on hearing commotion she came out from her house. She found that her son Subhash Singh has been confined in the house of Munarik Singh. Next day at about 11:00 am Munarik Singh , Sumeshwar Singh @ Guduwa and Jai Prakash Singh brought her son to a nearby school and started assaulting him with lathi. When she tried to rescue her son then Sumeshwar Singh assaulted her. The accused persons thereafter carried her son to her house and left. She offered water to her son but while drinking water he succumbed to his injuries. She covered the dead body of her son and bolted the room from outside but in the evening when she entered her house she found that the dead body of her son was not there. She has further stated that the appellants threatened her not to go to the police for lodging any complaint about the occurrence.

3. The informant has gone to the police station on 10.10.2010 and her fardbeyan was recorded by B. D. Jha, Sub-Inspector of Police at Sadar Hospital, Latehar at about 12:30 hrs. in the afternoon. On the basis of her fardbeyan, Latehar P.S. Case No. 124 of 2010 was lodged against Sumeshwar Singh @ Guduwa, Jai Prakash Singh, Mohan Singh and Munarik Singh under sections 341/342/323/506/302 and 201 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. In Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2011, the prosecution has examined five witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges framed against the appellants.

5. During the trial, Ram Kewal Singh PW-1 and Jagdish Singh PW-2 have been declared hostile. PW-3, Parmeshwar Singh and PW-5, Guna Singh are the hearsay witnesses.

6. The informant is the only eye witness in this case. She is mother of the deceased and, therefore, as indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Joseph Vs. State of Kerala” reported in (2003) 1 SCC 465, her evidence has to be examined with greater amount of care and caution and it can be accepted only after testing it with reference to the evidence tendered by other prosecution witnesses.

7. In a criminal trial, the testimony of solitary witness can form the basis for conviction if it is found cogent and credible and inspires confidence of the Court. In “Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court can convict an accused on the basis of the evidence of solitary eye-witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance and at the same time the Court is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The informant has substantially reiterated her fardbeyan in the Court. She has deposed in the Court that her son was confined in the house of Munarik Singh and next day at about 11:00 am the appellants have assaulted him at a nearby school. She has also stated that when she tried to intervene she was assaulted and the appellants had left her son in her house almost dead. However, after this whatever she has stated in the Court is missing from her fardbeyan and, in our opinion, that is a substantial improvement in her testimony. In her fardbeyan she has simply stated that the appellants have caused disappearance of the dead body but in the Court she has deposed that the appellants have burnt the dead body of her son near Charka Pathar river. PW-1 has stated in the Court that his statement was not recorded by the police and he has no knowledg