The central legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence must establish the accused's intention to cause death for a conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGEMENT :

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

In Sessions Trial Case No. 203 of 2011, Gulab Chandra Diggi, Chalu Tiu and Tantu Diggi were put on trial but the other two accused persons were acquitted by the trial Judge. The appellant has suffered conviction and sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The informant of this case is wife of Manki Diggi, the deceased.

3. Anita Diggi who is daughter of the informant is an eye-witness.

4. During the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses; the informant is P.W.3.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has acquitted Gulab Chandra Diggi on the ground that no evidence was led by the prosecution on his complicity in the crime and even P.W.1 has not spoken a word about him. Chalu Tiu was also acquitted of the charges framed against him on the ground that his complicity in the occurrence that he caught hold of wife of Sirka Soy is not established in as much as she was not examined as a witness during the trial.

6. Mr. R. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and conviction of the appellant is primarily based on testimony of the solitary eye-witness who is daughter of the deceased and other two material witnesses are also related to the deceased and, therefore, without sufficient corroboration by independent evidence conviction of the appellant on the basis of testimony of the sole eye-witness is not proper.

7. The case of the prosecution is that in the afternoon of 28.01.2011 Manki Diggi had gone for grazing the cattle. His daughter, namely, Anita Diggi came back home from school and after taking meal had gone to the field for grazing goats. There she has seen Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi and Chalu Tiu assaulting her father with “danda”. The wife of Sirka Soy tried to save her father but Chalu Tiu caught hold of her and Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi continued to assault her father. She came running home and informed her sister and the mother. They had gone to the field and found Manki Diggi lying injured in the field. He was brought to P.H.C, Sonua for treatment but in course of treatment he succumbed to the injury.

8. In her examination-in-chief P.W.1 has narrated what she had seen in the afternoon of 28.01.2011. Her testimony is in line with the fardbeyan of her mother which was recorded on 28.01.2011. She has deposed in the Court that she has seen Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi and Chalu Tiu assaulting her father with “danda”; her father suffered injuries on his head and face; on her information her mother and sister came in the field and; with the help of the villagers her father was taken to the health center. She was cross-examined at length but she has firmly stood to her grounds and nothing material could be elicited from her by the defence. P.W.2 is another daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is his wife. They are not the eye-witnesses but they have seen Manki Diggi in injured condition in the field. Both have spoken about enmity between Manki Diggi and the father of Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi. They have stated that P.W.1 on seeing the accused persons assaulting her father came home and informed them. As P.W.1 has deposed similar facts in the case, evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not hearsay rather substantive evidence. We do not find any contradiction in the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The testimony of P.W.1 is sufficiently corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well and the medical evidence has also supported P.W.1 on the manner of occurrence as narrated by her in the Court. In our opinion, she is a reliable and trustworthy witness.

9. By now it is largely accepted that conviction of an accused can be based on testimony of a solitary witness and it is not necessary to seek corroboration to the evidence of a sole eye-witness. The only requirement in law is that the testimony of solitary witness should be of such sterling