Conviction can be sustained based on the sole testimony of a credible witness, irrespective of other witnesses turning hostile.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Criminal Appeals are preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 28.01.2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment of 06 months under Section 4 of The Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act.

2. Heard learned counsel representing the appellants and learned A.P.P. and Spl. P.P. representing the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the entire conviction is based upon the testimony of P.W.-7 who is alleged to be an eye witness and daughter of both the deceased. As per the appellants, the P.W.-7 cannot be said to be an eye witness as her presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. He submits that P.W.-7 has stated that after the incident, she had fled and went to the house of her maternal uncle but the fact is that she was in the house of her maternal uncle which is as per the suggestion given by the defence while cross examining the P.W.-7. He further states that the witness P.W.-7 has failed to disclose the name of her maternal uncle, which makes her story that she went to the house of maternal uncle, doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that no blood stains were collected from the place of occurrence and neither P.W.-7 stated as to how the accused entered her house at night. All these make the presence of P.W.-7 doubtful at the place of occurrence. He further contends that except P.W.-7, all the material witnesses have been declared hostile. Even the maternal uncle of the witness had not been examined by the prosecution. He lastly submits that particular role of each of the appellants have also not been explained by this witness. Thus, these appeals need to be allowed and the appellants need to be acquitted.

4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that three named accused who are the appellants herein, entered the house of the deceased, dragged the father of the informant, assaulted him and committed his murder and thereafter committed murder of the mother of the informant. P.W.-7 is the eye witness. He further submits that there is similar allegation against all the three appellants that all the three have assaulted the deceased and they had motive to commit murder as the mother of the informant was branded as a witch. He further submits that the conviction is under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the evidence suggests that there was common intention to commit murder of the deceased. He further submits that since all of the accused persons had participated in commission of the offence and assaulted the deceased, it is not necessary to narrate as to which accused assaulted on which part of the body. If the eye witness says that all of them have assaulted with sharp weapon resulting in death, that is sufficient to sustain the conviction. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.-7 who is none but the daughter of the deceased. Both mother and father of P.W.-7 were murdered. She in her fardbeyan stated that they were preparing to go to sleep after having their dinner when these three appellants entered their house and started dragging