The evidence of a single witness is sufficient for conviction if the witness is wholly reliable. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence.

1. Appellant accused Jai Shanker @ Ashok preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 4.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, T.E.C.P-3, Lucknow in the case Crime No.223 of 2010, Session’s Trial No.1010 of 2010 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, T.E.C.P-3, Lucknow hold guilty to appellant under section 304 IPC and sentenced 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine additional six months simple imprisonment.

2. For the disposal of this appeal, the relevant facts are that on 29.4.2010 at about 9.00 P.M, P.W-1 Shri Amit Gupta and his mother deceased Smt. Shanti Devi was sitting outside his house no.215/60, Subhash Marg, P.S Wazirganj in Lucknow. Appellant accused Jai Shanker @ Ashok came suddenly and catch hold the hand of mother of P.W-1 Smt. Shanti Devi and inflicted injuries on the head of Smt. Shanti Devi through brick. On the hue and cry so many persons came at the spot and apprehended the appellant at some distance from the place of incident.

3. Appellant accused was surrendered to Police Officials who were at round. After the apprehension of appellant accused, he told his name Jai Shanker @ Ashok, resident of Village Roorki, P.S Chhapla, District Rohtak Haryana. P.W-1 and the persons who came at spot were carrying to Smt. Shanti Devi for treatment to Balrampur Hospital but she succumbed to her injuries on the way.

4. The F.I.R exhibit Ka-4 was scribed by Shri Mirja Sikander Beigh who presented it at Police Station Wazirganj where case under section 304 IPC was registered against appellant. The check F.I.R is Exhibit Ka-5. The fact of registration of F.I.R was entered in the general diary of Police Station. The carbon copy of which is Exhibit Ka-6 P.W-5 Shri Arun Kumar Dubey started investigation and recorded the statement of complainant Shri Mirja Sikander Beigh and P.W -1 Shri Amit Gupta and inspected the place of incident and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-7. P.W-5 took in possession the simple and blood stained soil from the place of incident and other incriminating materials and conducted inquest report upon the body of Smt. Shanti Devi which is Exhibit-Ka 2. Shri Arun Kumar Dubey, S.I prepared other documents for the postmortem of dead body and send dead body of Smt.Shanti Devi for postmortem. After completing investigation, P.W-5 submitted charge sheet under section 304 I.P.C against the accused which is Exhibit-Ka -11 on record.

5. The postmortem upon the dead body of Smt. Shanti Devi was conduced by P.W-2 Dr. Adeel Ahmad who proved postmortem report which is Exhibit Ka-3 on record. As per statement of P.W-2 Dr. Adeel Ahmad, there were following four antimortem injuries on the head of dead body of Smt.Shanti Devi.

1. Lacerated wound 1.0 x 0.2 cm x skin deep over right side of face 1.0 cm lateral to right side eye brow.

2. Abraded contusion 5.0 x 3.0 cm. over right side of forehead.

3. Lacerated wound 3.0 x 1.0 cm x scalp deep over right side of head 3.0 cm behind the right ear.

4. Contusion 8.0 x 6.0 cm. Over right side of head 1.0 cm above the left ear.

6. According to P.W-2 Dr. Adeel Ahmad at the opening of the injury ecchymosis were present underneath above mentioned injuries. Fracture of right temporal bone present. Subdural haematoma present all over the brain.

7. It is further stated by the witness that the membrane of the brain, lungs were congested. Both lungs and the membrane of abdomen were congested.

8. The left chamber of the heart was empty while the right chamber was full of blood. Liver, spleen, kidneys and stomach were congested. Doctor further opined that the death of the deceased was due to coma which was caused by the antimortem injuries which were found on the head of the dead body. Injuries were caused by the hard blunt object. Postmortem on the body was conducted on 30.4.2010 at 2.00 P.M. The death of Smt. Shanti Devi was probably occurred within one day from the time of postmortem.

9. To prove the guilt of the appellant ac