A single reliable eyewitness can sustain a conviction, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity, even if the accused was not named in the F.I.R.

JUDGMENT :

Per Ananda Sen, J.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2016, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the F.I.R. in the instant case is against unknown. The informant has improved the prosecution version while deposing as witness, thus, he is absolutely not a reliable witness. If at all the assailant was identified immediately after the occurrence then his name should have been disclosed in the F.I.R. This clearly suggests that this appellant has been implicated in the instant case by way of afterthought. He further argues that P.W.-4, upon whose testimony the prosecution has heavily relied upon, cannot be said to be an eye witness. If the testimony of this witness is properly scrutinized, it would be clear that she has not seen the occurrence as the deceased was walking behind her, thus, it is not possible for her to see who has committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of P.W.-4 is suspicious because, if one sees a murder in her own eyes, it would not possible for her to go to her workplace and work, rather she would rush to the Police Station to inform the police.

4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that P.W.-4 is an eye witness who had seen this appellant committing murder of the deceased. Ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence in the instant case. Further, as per the State, F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia and only after receiving information about the death of his wife, the informant had lodged the F.I.R. Later on the involvement of this appellant surfaced during investigation. He further submits that while the F.I.R. was being registered and the fardbeyan was being recorded, P.W.-4 was not present, thus, naturally the name of this appellant did not surface. On these grounds, dismissal of the appeal is sought.

5. The facts germane are that an F.I.R. came to be registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Basudev Giri, stating therein that his wife (deceased) – Kunti Devi along with her two companions, used to go to work as domestic help and return home in the evening. His wife, fifteen days’ ago told him that she is afraid of travelling to Hariharpur Gumti as some people are engaged in molestation, and requested him to atleast drop her to Hariharpur Gumti, but due to lack of time he could not do so. Like every day, his wife at about 05:30 A.M. went out from home to work at Gomoh. He got to know from the Villagers of Bhelwadih that the dead body of his wife is lying in mutilated condition on the railway track between Bholidih and Hariharpur Gumti. When he reached there, he saw that it was actually the dead body of his wife which is lying on the railway track in mutilated condition. There was also injury of sharp edged weapon on her neck. It seem that after committing murder, in order to conceal her dead body, the same was kept on the railway track to give an impression of a railway accident.

6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan F.I.R. being Hariharpur P.S. Case No.38/2015 was registered under Section 302/201/34 IPC and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302/201 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed under Section 302/201 IPC.

7. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses:-

a) P.W.-1 namely Mahabir Mahato, stated that he heard