The judgment underscores the significance of quality evidence, the impact of procedural errors on the accused, and the need to establish premeditation in murder cases.

JUDGEMENT :

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

The appellant has suffered the Judgement of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) dated 16.2.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.2.2018 by which he was awarded sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs. 3,000/-under section 302 IPC with a default stipulation to undergo SI for four months.

2. Kasmar PS case No. 20 of 2011 has been registered against the appellant on 26.3.2011 under section 302 IPC for committing murder of Chandmuni Devi, his mother.

3. In the fardbeyan which was recorded at 6:45 AM on 26.3.2011 Jitlal Manjhi has stated that the last evening at about 09:00 PM his brother, the appellant, came home and asked food from his mother. However before she could start his brother started assaulting the mother. On raising hulla several persons from the vicinity rushed there however by that time his mother had died.

4. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 IPC. During the trial the prosecution has examined four witnesses; PW-2 and PW-3 are brothers of the appellant.

5. PW-2, the informant is elder brother of the appellant. He is the sole eye-witness in this case.

6. Under section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove any fact in a case no particular number of witnesses is required. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; “even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eyewitness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration”.

7. PW-2 is intimately related to the appellant as well as the deceased however merely because he is related to both of them his evidence cannot be discarded rather this is a good reason to accept his testimony for he would not falsely implicate his own brother for committing murder of his mother. It is a well-accepted proposition in law that while scrutinizing testimony of a related and interested witness this has to be kept in mind that he would not shield the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent man. PW-2 has deposed in the Court that the appellant came in the night and assaulted the mother with a dagger. After inflicting injury on her neck he fled away. He tried to apprehend him but became apprehensive as he was carrying a dagger. On his raising hulla several villagers came there and called Mukhiya who sent information to the police station. He has affirmed that his statement was read over to him over which he has put his thumb impression. From testimony of PW-2 it appears that his claim in the fardbeyan that he is an eye-witness to the actual assault upon his mother by the appellant is not affirmed by him. He has stated that he has three brothers and all of them are residing separately. At the time of occurrence wife of the appellant had gone to her parents' place with her children and the appellant had come in the house of his mother in the evening for food. He has truthfully disclosed in the Court that there was a land dispute amongst the brothers and the dispute was continuing since one or two months.

8. In the opinion of PW-4 the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp and heavy object and the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock. PW-2 may not have seen the appellant actually assaulting the mother and in the Court he is not very certain about it but from his evidence this much is established that the appellant was seen running away with a knife from the house of the mother. PW-1 has stated that on her hulla when he had gone to the place of occurrence he was told that the appellant has killed his mother. He is not an eye-witness but his previous statement read with his testimony is relevant under section 157 of the Evidence Act. PW-3 who is another brother of the appellant has