The Court held that the evidence of a single witness, though uncorroborated, can be acted upon by the Court, unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, and that whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and much would depend upon the judicial discretion of the Judge concerned.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Confirmation - Evidence - Appreciation of - Corroboration - Motive - Identification - Sentence - Commutation - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 506.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased Housabai adopted Varkari Sampraday and was residing in a Math at Pandharpur conducted by one Madan Maharaj. The deceased Madhav Buwa was the Secretary of the Math and witness Macchindra was also one of its inmates. Housabai used to reside in the premises of the Math after the death of her husband, but she claimed partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family property by filing Civil Suit No: 120 of 1960 against the two accused in the appropriate Court, and having succeeded in that suit, obtained possession of her share of the lands on the 23rd of April 1968. The enforcement by Housabai of her rights of partition and separate possession of her share of the family lands appears, naturally, to have embittered the relations between her and her brothers-in-law accused Nos. 1 and 2, and she apprehended some trouble from them at the time of undertaking sowing operations in the field of which she had been given possession pursuant to the decree of the Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the evidence of the eye-witness Macchindra was corroborated by the medical evidence, the oral evidence of Pujari Pandurang, the evidence of Ramchandra Gadhave, the evidence of Nivrutti Bartakke, the finding of the iron bar from the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the statement of accused No. 1 and the production by him of an axe from a dung-pit near the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the evidence in regard to the alleged motive of the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eye-witness Macchindra was reliable and corroborated? 2. Whether the accused had the motive to commit the crime? 3. Whether the accused were properly identified? 4. Whether the sentence imposed on accused No. 2 should be commuted to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of the eye-witness Macchindra was reliable and corroborated by the medical evidence, the oral evidence of Pujari Pandurang, the evidence of Ramchandra Gadhave, the evidence of Nivrutti Bartakke, the finding of the iron bar from the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2, the statement of accused No. 1 and the production by him of an axe from a dung-pit near the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the evidence in regard to the alleged motive of the crime. 2. The Court held that the accused had the motive to commit the crime as there was evidence of strained relations between Housabai and accused Nos. 1 and 2 as a result of previous litigation. 3. The Court held that the accused were properly identified as the assailants by the eye-witness Macchindra. 4. The Court held that the sentence imposed on accused No. 2 should not be commuted to the lesser sentence of life imprisonment as there were no extenuating circumstances.
Final Decision: The Court confirmed the convictions and sentences passed on both the accused persons and dismissed the appeal filed by them.

JUDGMENT - Vimadalal, J.

1. This is a confirmation case in respect of the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge at Satara against accused No. 2 before him. The same has come up for hearing along with the appeal filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the trial Judge. It may be mentioned that the trial Judge had acquitted the 3rd accused in the said case.

2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of the matter before us are that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers, and they had a third brother named Shankar who was married to the deceased Housabai. Shankar died some time in the year 1952, without issue and, after his death, Housabai adopted Varkari Sampraday and was residing in a Math at Pandharpur conducted by one Madan Maharaj. The deceased Madhav Buwa was the Secretary of the Math and witness Macchindra was also one of its inmates. Housabai used to reside in the premises of the Math after the death of her husband, but she claimed partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family property by filing Civil Suit No: 120 of 1960 against the two accused in the appropriate Court, and having succeeded in that suit, obtained possession of her share of the lands on the 23rd of April 1968. The enforcement by Housabai of her rights of partition and separate possession of her share of the family lands appears, naturally, to have embittered the relations between her and her brothers-in-law accused Nos. 1 and 2, and she apprehended some trouble from them at the time of undertaking sowing operations in the field of which she had been given possession pursuant to the decree of the Court. She accordingly, sought police protection by making two applications which are Exhibits 42 and 43 in the present case and, with the assistance of a constable, she went through the sowing operations without any untoward incident occurring. The time for harvesting having arrived, Housabai left the Math some time in the beginning of December 1968, accompanied by Madhav Buwa (since deceased) and witness Macchindra, in order to go to her lands at Nandgaon. She did not put up at the house of her brothers-in-law accused Nos. 1 and 2 from whom she presumably apprehended trouble, but put up at the house of witness Ramchandra Gadhave in the village of Targaon which is separated from the village of Nandgaon only by the river Krishna. From there, Housabai, together with Macchindra and Madhav Buwa, used to go to Housabais field for the purpose of harvesting operations, and it may be stated that Housabai had actually introduced her two companions to accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the very first day, and had also spoken to accused Nos. 1 and 2 who had given her some jowar, flour and fuel which she needed. The work of removing the crop went on and was still incomplete after the expiration of a period of 13 days during which Housabai, Madhav Buwa and Macchindra continued to stay at the house of Ramchandra Gadhave. As, however, they had over-stayed their hospitality, they had thereafter to shift from the house of the said Ramchandra, and they then put up in the house of one Nivrutti Bartakke which was also situated in the village of Targaon. They had put up at the said Nivrutti only for a couple of days when the incident in the present case occurred on the 19th of December 1968.

3. On that day, Housabai, Madhav Buwa and Macchindra had gone to the field of Housabai at about 8 a.m., as usual, for removing the crop and had worked in the field for the whole day. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, accompanied by accused No. 3 who was their distant uncle, had come into the neighbouring field belonging to accused Nos. 1 and 2 at about 4 p.m. that day and had started cutting the wood of a Babhul tree in their field. Accused No. 1 had for that purpose an iron bar, accused No. 2 had in his hand an axe and accused No. 3 had with him a saw. Housabai and her companions finished the days work in the field at about 5-30 p.m. an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document