The conviction can be sustained based on trustworthy testimony of a sole eyewitness, even without corroborating medical evidence, as long as the defendant's mental state is not legally established.

ORDER :

Subhash Chand, J.

The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction dated 08.05.2018 and Order of Sentence dated 11.05.2018 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in S.T. Case No. 766 of 2012, arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 whereby the accused-Sunder Pahan was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine appellant/convict has to further undergo S.I. for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Cr. Appeal are that the fardbayan of the informant Manki Pahan was recorded in which the allegations are made that on 27.05.2012 at 04 O’clock she was at her house and her husband Suku Pahan was manufacturing wooden window at the door of the house. At the same time, the son of her brother-in-law (Bhainsur) Sunder Pahan came and assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband from the backside of Tangi. Thereafter he went and again came after some time and gave again the blow with the Tangi to her husband with intent to commit murder of him whereby neck of her husband was cut and died at the spot. She raised alarm. Persons of the village also attracted there and nabbed Sunder Pahan along with Tangi. Sunder Pahan also sustained some injury in this sequence. On this fardbayan, Khunti case crime No. 57 of 2012 was registered under Section 302 of I.P.C. against Sunder Pahan.

3. The I.O. concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against Sunder Pahan to the Court of Magistrate concerned who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Khunti who further transferred the same for trial to the Additional Session Judge-I.

4. The trial court framed charge against Sunder Pahan under Section 302 of I.P.C. and charge was read over the explained to him. He denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.

5. On behalf of prosecution in oral evidence examined P.W.1 Ghasiray Munda, P.W.2 Sahdeo Munda, P.W.3 Anudeep Singh, I.O. of this case, P.W.4 Jitray Munda, P.W.5 Sanika Munda, P.W.6 Dr. Sunil Khalkho and P.W.7 Manki Pahanain and in documentary evidence filed Ext.1 (signature of Ghasiray Munda (P.W.1) over the inquest report), Ext.2 (signature of Anudeep Singh (P.W.3) over the fardbayan), Ext.3 (inquest report), Ext.4 (seizure list), Ext.5 (entire postmortem report).

6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded in which he denied the incriminating circumstances against him and told himself to be innocent.

7. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submission of learned Counsel of parties, passed the impugned Judgment of Conviction as stated hereinabove.

8. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, the instant Cr. Appeal has been directed on behalf of appellant.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel of parties and perused the materials on record.

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case is based on direct evidence. The eye-witness of the occurrence is the wife of the deceased. Her testimony is not corroborated with the medical evidence as she has stated that the second blow was given from the sharp side of Tangi whereby his neck was cut but same is not corroborated with the medical evidence as the Doctor has shown only two lacerated wounds. Further the testimony of the sole eye-witness is also tainted as she stated that the appellant/convict had given blow with Tangi on account of mental illness. In view of the above contented to allow the appeal and to s