IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a single reliable eyewitness can be sufficient for conviction, and that the trial court must not disregard credible evidence based on irrelevant considerations or minor discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

(Jyotsna Sharma, J.) :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for private respondent and learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists namely, Jag Mohan Singh and Ajendra Singh, putting up a challenge to a judgment and order dated 01.06.2004 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2001, under sections 352, 302 IPC acquitting the accused Devendra (the respondent no. 1), giving him benefit of doubt.

3. Before the grounds taken by the revisionist are mentioned, I find it appropriate to briefly refer to the prosecution case.

4. The first informant Ajendra Singh lodged an FIR by giving a handwritten application to the concerned police station, alleging that Smt. Kamlesh, the aunt (bua) of the first informant’s wife was married to one Vijendra Singh. Vijendra Singh died four months after his marriage, leaving no issue. Kamlesh, wife of Vijendra Singh has been working as a nurse at P.H.C., Mohammadabad and had adopted a child. Since child was adopted by her, her devar (Devendra Singh-the instant accused) became inimical to her. A day before the incident i.e. on 15.04.2001, the deceased Kamlesh had come to her village, asking for her share in the crops but Devendra Singh refused to give her, her share. Next day, when the first informant was going to drop her at the Mainpuri Bus Station, carrying her on his two-wheeler (Vikky) and when he reached near Bhairav Mandir, the accused Devendra Singh came riding on his scooter and deliberately hit his two-wheeler from behind, toppling the first informant and Kamlesh. Instantly, the accused took out a knife and attacked Kamlesh leaving her severely injured. He immediately fled away on his scooter towards Mainpuri. Smt. Kamlesh died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by one Shiv Veer Singh S/o Ram Shankar of the same village. Leaving the dead body at the place of occurrence, the first informant went to lodge the first information report. As per prosecution case, the FIR of the incident (which took place at 09.30 am in the morning of 16.04.2001) was lodged the same day at 10.30 am. The inquest on the dead body was conducted the same day. In the inquest report, 10 injuries on the body of the deceased were noted down. Samples of blood soaked and plain earth was gathered from the place of occurrence. The two-wheeler of the first informant, on which the first informant was allegedly carrying the deceased for dropping her to the bus stand, was found on the spot. From the place of occurrence, certain articles like a pair of slippers and a bag were taken into possession and a memo thereof was prepared by the investigating officer. The bag contained clothes like sari, petticoat, blouse, keys, some money, some clothes wearable by a small child, which included half t-shirt, pant, underwear etc. The accused was taken on police remand and on his pointing out, a knife was recovered. Blood spots were found on the knife. The articles collected from the spot and the blood soaked clothes of the deceased were sent for forensic examination. On a number of articles human blood was found.

5. After committal of the case, the accused was charged under sections 352 and 302 IPC.

6. The prosecution produced eye-witnesses i.e., the first informant Ajendra Singh as PW1, Sant Bakhsh Singh (a witness of inquest, motive and certain prosecution papers) as PW2, Varnam Singh (a witness of certain prosecution papers) as PW3, Constable Jaiveer Singh (a witness who proved the chik FIR, the copy of Kayami GD) as PW4, Dr. N.K. Sharma (who conducted post-mortem) as PW5, Sub-Inspector R.C. Sharma (who is a witness of recovery of the weapon of offence) as PW6, Inspector Shrikant Dixit (the investigating officer who conducted the investigation, prepared the spot inspection paper and certain other prosecution papers and also witness of the statement given by the accused admiss