JUDGEMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

In a gruesome - incident five persons of a family were killed. The only person of the family, a child, who managed to escape has narrated the incident to police. On the basis of the statement of Dubraj Dorai which was recorded at about 13:00 hrs. on 24.11.2008, Muffasil (Pandrasali O.P) P.S Case No. 84 of 2008 was lodged under sections 302 and 201 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ghasiram Dorai Lingo Dorai @ Lenga, Tribhon Dorai (Joklo, Tipu Dorai @ Pagari Dorari, Papari Dorai @ Satari Dorai, Sandir Dorai and Baburam Haiburu and after the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against them.

2. Baburam Haiburu and Sandir Dorai were found juvenile on the date of occurrence and accordingly their cases were separated and sent to the Juvenile Board for enquiry. Tribhon Dorai @ Joklo, Tipu Dorai, Papari Dorai @ Satari Dorai, Ghasiram Dorai and Lingo Dorai @ Lenga have faced the trial on the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal code for committing murder of Nirmal Dorai, Poida Dorai, Sonamuni Dorai, Ghasiram Dorai and Tribhon Dorai and under section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of their dead bodies.

3. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the appellant. PW-6, the informant is the sole eye-witness in the case. The statement of PW-6 was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded his statement has come to the Court to affirm the same. The co-villagers, namely, Jaiphal Haiburu PW-l, Kunwar Singh Haiburu PW-2, Goraka Maharana PW-3, Tumba Dorai PW-4, Buchchi Haiburu PW-5 and Patar Doari PW-7 have tendered evidence which supports the prosecution on other material aspects of the case, even though PW-1, PW-2 and PW -3 have turned hostile. PW -9, Dr. Dhirendra Kumar has conducted the post-mortem examination on 25.11.2008 and found several ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Nirmal Dorai, Poida Dorai, Sonamuni Dorai, Ghasiram Dorai and Tribhon Dorai. In his estimation time elapsed since death was about 06 to 36 hrs. from the post-mortem examination.

4. On evaluating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has held that PW-6 is a reliable and trustworthy witness and his testimony is corroborated by PW-3 and PW-7. Regarding discrepancy in the age and about the maturity of PW-6, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that minor discrepancies in the evidence would not affect the prosecution case against h appellants.

5. As a general rule the Court may act on the testimony of a single eye-witness and there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the basis of sole testimony of an eye-witness. Section 134 of the Evidence Act says that no particular number of witnesses is required in any case for the proof of a fact. The import of section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (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 eye-witness 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. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affair".

6. Mr. Rajan Raj, the learned counsel has argued at length on maturity of Dubraj Dorai. The testimony of Dubraj Dorai has been challenged also on the ground that when the incident took place it was dark and there was no electricity in the village, still he has identified the appellants and made escape which was impossible because there is only one way of entrance from the courtyard and most surprisingly he was not chased by the assailants.

7. In the early days there was no strict body of rules designed to exclude or include evidence of a child