The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of evidence, especially in cases where witnesses turn hostile, and the importance of corroborating the evidence of police officials on material particulars.

S.K. GANGELE, J.

1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12.03.2008 passed by the XII Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Jabalpur in Session’s Trial No. 364/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the deceased Brijesh Thakur was the step son of the appellant. The character of appellant was not good. He tried to outrage modesty of his daughter-in-law and other female members of the family. On 23.4.2007, he had tried to molest his daughter-in-law Manisha Thakur (PW-2) at the night. She and the deceased objected about the aforesaid act of the appellant. Due to this appellant made false allegation that the deceased had illegal relationship with Manisha who was the wife of younger brother of the deceased.

3. On 30.4.2007, after taking dinner, all the family members were sleeping in the house. The deceased was sleeping on the floor and on one side appellant and his brother in law (sadu bhai) Shankarlal Pal (PW-10) was sleeping on a bed. On other side, Radha Bai (PW-3) and Akash (PW-12) were sleeping. At around 4:30 am in the morning, they had heard some sound. Thereafter, Manisha Thakur (PW-2), Ramratan (PW-1) and Radhabai (PW-3) had awaken and they had seen the appellant inflicting injuries by axe on the deceased. The appellant also tried to inflict injury on Manisha Thakur. However, other persons catch hold the appellant and saved Manisha. Ramratan (PW-1) lodged the report of the incident vide Exhibit P/1 at Police Station and Merg was registered vide Exhibit P/2. Thereafter, the Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

4. The Trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and awarded the sentence.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has contended that all the prosecution witnesses including the Police personnel turned hostile. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of Ramratan (PW-1) and Manisha Thakur (PW-2) recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and treated it as substantive piece of evidence. The Trial Court has commited error of law on this aspect. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that seizure of axe from the appellant has not been proved. The Trial Court further relied on the F.I.R Exhibit P/1 lodged by Ramratan Singh (PW-1) as substantive piece of evidence. Ramratan (PW-1) turned hostile and denied the contents of the F.I.R. Hence, the Trial Court has further committed an error in relying on the F.I.R. Except this piece of evidence, there is no other substantive piece of evidence against the appellant. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on various judgments.

6. Contrary to this, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the appellant had committed murder of his stepson. There was no other person present on the time at the place of incident except the family members. They turned hostile because they wanted to save the appellant.

7. The independent witnesses deposed that family members had told them that appellant had committed murder of the deceased. Apart from this, the F.I.R was lodged on the instructions of Ramratan (PW-1) who is the step brother of the deceased and son of the accused. There is also other evidence on record to held the appellant guilty for the offence. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly and passed a reasoned judgment. In support of his contentions, learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 14 SCC 434.

8. Radha Bai (PW-3) and Akash Shrivastav (PW12) are the alleged eye-witness because they were sleeping in the same room where the inc