The delayed examination of witnesses and the recording of statements do not necessarily discredit their testimonies. Corroborative evidence and objective circumstances should be considered in evaluating the testimony of a solitary witness.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

In this appeal, the appellant-Karam Chand, assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred as “the Penal Code” for brevity), and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Case No.100 of 2003.

2. Shown of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that one Ram Samujh, S/o Shiv Ratan lodged a complaint before the P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, that his Sant Lal went to the forest on 05.02.2003, at about 7-8 AM, for attending call of nature. But, he did not return from the forest. In the evening, one Bijli informed the informant that his son is lying dead inside the forest. Then they went on the spot where the dead body was lying, found several injuries on his persons. Accordingly, a police case was registered, and investigation of the case was taken up by the Investigating Officer. In course of investigation, he examined witnesses, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, seized material objects like wearing apperals of the deceased, and the blood-stained axe on the discovery statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Evidence Act” for brevity), he arrested the accused, and forwarded him to the Court. Upon completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Penal Code against the appellant.

3. The defence took the plea of simple denial and false implication by the prosecution.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, and relied upon several documents including the Post-Mortem Report, and discovery statement made by the appellant.

5. P.W.5 Tirath Kumar is the eye-witness who has supported the case of the prosecution, basing on whose testimony, mainly, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant.

6. P.W. 2 Bhure Singh and P.W. 3 Tapeshwar Pal are two other eye-witnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution, and have been cross-examined by the prosecution after having obtained permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act.

7. P.W. 1 Ram Samujh is the informant of the case, and he happens to be the father of the deceased.

8. P.W. 4 Sadik Hussain, P.W. 6 Ranjit Singh are two formal witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove seizures etc.

9. P.W. 7 Dr. Madan Mohan has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and P.W. 8 S.I. Rajveer Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case.

10. Neither any witness were examined on behalf of the defence, nor any documents were led into evidence.

11. The learned Trial Court, after analysis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and accepted the evidence of P.W. 5 Tirath Kumar, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of the oral testimony of P.W. 7 Dr. Madan Mohan, contents of the Post-Mortem Report, and the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., Axe ¼dqYgkM+h½ at the instance of the appellant, which on chemical examination was found to have been stained with human blood.

12. Initially, on 30.12.2003 the judgment of conviction was passed. The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2004. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the criminal appeal, set-aside the judgment, and remanded the matter back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to re-examine the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for brevity), as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while recording the conviction at the first instance had not put certain material questions to the appellant regarding the recovery of weapon of offence etc.

13. After remand, the learned Additional Sessions Judge again took of the m