The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of a single witness for conviction, the requirement of corroboration of evidence, and the application of the legal principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - The appellant has filed this Prisoner's Petition from the jail to challenge the Judgment dated 05.10.2013 delivered in Sessions Trial Case No.37/43/97 of 2010-13. The challenge encompasses simultaneously the order of sentence dated 05.10.2013.

2. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Duryodhan Nayak, father of the appellant on .08.2009 at 3 P.M. As the appellant denied the said charge and raised the plea of innocence, he was put to trial. On completion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. As consequence of the said conviction, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, the appellant would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25.08.2009, at about 3 P.M., the appellant killed his father by a Katara (Bill Hook) and his dead body was left lying on the road side of Jali Bahal Chowk. Having received the said information from Mantu Naik, Purandar Naik, another son of the deceased, informed the occurrence to Laikera Police Station and on that basis, Laikera P.S. Case No.100(19) of 2009 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. Since the informant clearly revealed that his brother, namely Tularam Naik [the appellant] committed the murder, he was arrested and finally, he was put to trial on the said charge. The trial was conducted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda.

4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 15) including Hiralal Sandha- P.W.7, who claimed to have witnessed the appellant giving blows on the vital parts of the deceased by a Khandasa. That apart, 13 documentary evidence have been admitted in the record to support the charge.

5. From the defence, no documentary evidence has been laid, but the appellant examined himself as D.W.1. That remained the only evidence from the defence.

6. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have his response to the incriminating evidence that surfaced in the trial. The appellant denied such evidence as concocted or fabricated and falsified to implicate him in the case.

7. Having appreciated the evidence, the trial Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda) has observed that it is not impossible nor even improbable to see the occurrence of assault from a distance of 300 ft. by P.W.7. P.W.7 saw both the accused and the deceased from a close proximity during the time when the occurrence took place. On a sudden quarrel, as stated, the deceased was chased by the appellant and the deceased rushed through the road, but the appellant dealt blows indiscriminately on the person of the deceased by a Khandasa (a heavy sharp cutting weapon). It has been further stated that the wife of the deceased, P.W.5, was present in the house at the time of the occurrence. She was sleeping. She was awakened up by some children after the occurrence. She has testified that the appellant had asked to transfer the deceased's own house in his name, but since the deceased was not inclined, he picked up quarrel and assaulted the deceased by a Katara.

The trial Judge has observed that, P.W.5 has also witnessed the occurrence but for obvious reason, she being the mother of the accused and after having already lost her husband forever, she might not be willing to lose her another son [the appellant]. P.W.5 resiled from her earlier statement only to save her son from the rigors of law. Over and above, on a close reading of her statement, it is seen that she has not disputed about the occurrence but she claimed to have not seen the occurrence, which is palpably false. Immediately after this assumption, the trial Judge has further observed that her evidence does in no manner out-weigh the evidence of P.W.4 and other evidence avail