A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 23.04.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No.342 of 2001(G) / S.T. No.52 of 1998(P), whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no evidence that this appellant had committed murder of the deceased as there was another accused present armed with weapon, as per the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution could have differentiated and the Trial Court could not have convicted this appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . He further submitted that as conviction is under Section 302 of IPC simpliciter without the aid of Section 34 of IPC, appellant could not have been convicted, when admittedly there were other persons armed with weapon. He further argues that as per P.W.-6, appellant was armed with an axe and knife and it is not believable that a person will assault using his both hands. He further submitted that save and except P.W.-6, there are no other witness to support the prosecution case. Even, P.W.-6 cannot be the eye witness, as the occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased, which is 150-200 yards away from the house of P.W.-6. Since, P.W.-6 was in her house, it is but natural that she had not seen the occurrence.

3. It is further argued that the Doctor had not given in his opinion that the injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, thus, Section 304 Part-II of IPC should be applicable in this case and not 302 of IPC. On these grounds, acquittal is sought for.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellant. P.W.-6, who is the informant of this case has categorically deposed about the whole incident. She has also stated about the motive of the occurrence. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, on these grounds, as per the A.P.P., this appeal needs to be dismissed.

5. The prosecution case as per the informant (Kalawati Devi) is that her father-Bisheshwar Sah (deceased) irrigated land of Lala Sah and some charges of irrigating the land was due which he had gone to demand at his door on 20.02.1997. Lala Sah said that he had no money and that he would pay when he had the same. Thereafter, Bisheshwar demanded charges for irrigation from Bihari Sah and Mohar Sah, but they also did not pay, upon which, he returned. On 21.02.1997, Lala Sah and Ramchandra Sah came at the door of her and asked her to come and take the payment for irrigation. Lala Sah was armed with lathi and Ramchandra Sah was armed with tangi and knife. Due to fear, informant did not reply. Then, Lala Sah asked his companion to go to the door of Bisheshwar Sah. They went there and Ramchandra Sah assaulted her father with tangi and knife. Hearing the sound of opening of door, she became suspicious as to whether they were assaulting her father. She went to her father’s room and saw Ramchandra Sah and Lala Sah coming out from ‘Dhaba’ and climbing on the bandh. When she came near her father, she saw him seriously injured and he was carrying and he was drenched in blood. She further stated that she came out and saw that on the bandh Bihari Sah and Mohar Sah were sitting and on seeing her they fled. Her father died after some time.

6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Dhurki P.S. Case No.7 of 1997 was registered under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed against him under Sec