Bagha @ Ashok vs State Of U.P.
2019 Latest Caselaw 2784 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved on: 13.3.2019
 
Delivered on: 11.4.2019
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1721 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Bagha @ Ashok
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1797 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shailesh Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') Bagha @ Ashok Vs. State of U.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 1797 of 2017 by Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh and Shyam under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., has been filed against one and common judgment of conviction and sentence made therein, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2007, State of U.P. Vs. Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh and three others, arising out of Case Crime No. 397 of 2006, under Section 307/34, 324/34 and 436 I.P.C. of Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, whereby each of convict appellant Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh and Shyam has been convicted and sentenced with seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine three months additional imprisonment, under Section 307/34 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, two months additional imprisonment, under Section 324/34 I.P.C.

2. In brief, case of prosecution which surfaced from judgment and record of trial Court, is that Case Crime No. 397 of 2006, under Sections 307, 324 and 436 I.P.C., was got registered at police Station- Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur on 6.11.2006 at 22:45 hours against Shyam, Chuchu, Raju son of Jhagdu Sonkar and Bagha @ Ashok son of late Daya Ram, all resident of Mohalla Putlighar, near Jahnvi Hotel, within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, by way of presenting First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'F.I.R.') Ex. Ka-1, under hand writing and signature of Vijay Kumar Sonkar, resident of Mohalla Putlighar, near Jahnvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, with contention that on 6.11.2006, there occurred some quarrel in between wife of neighbourer Baish and accused persons, owing to which, enmity occurred. As a result, on the same date of 6.11.2006 at about 10:00 P.M. Shyam, Chuchu and Raju son of Jhagdu Sonkar, Bagha @ Ashok son of late Daya Ram, all resident of Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur, armed with katta, sword and lathi-danda, got residential hut (madhai) of informant's cousin Ram Chandar, put at ablaze. After seeing this flame, Ram Chandar, his wife Guddi Devi and cousin Suraj rushed on spot, when Shyam with intention to kill, made firearm shot and Bagha @ Ashok, by sword, and rest by lathi-danda, assaulted them. Ram Chandar, his wife Guddi Devi and his cousin Suraj sustained injuries. This occurrence was witnessed by this informant, his nephew Babloo, his neighbourer Chhedi and Santosh along with others, under the light of electricity. Injured were taken at hospital and this report was submitted. After registration of this case crime number, vide G.D. entry Ex. Ka-2, "Chitthi Majroobi" was got prepared for injured Suraj, injured Ram Chandar and injured Smt. Guddi Devi. Their injuries were written in G.D. and they were sent for their medical examination at Government Hospital by Homeguard Vijay Kumar Tripathi. Medical Officer PW-6, Dr. U.P. Dwivedi, who was posted at Emergency Ward of District Hospital, Mirzapur, on 6.11.2006, examined injured Smt.Guddi Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Ram Chandar, resident of Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, brought by Homeguard 1089 Vijay Kumar Tripathi at 11:06 P.M. on 6.11.2006 and she was having following injuries over her person:-

(i) lacerated wound of 1cm X half cm X mussel deep with blackening and tattooing around it over left scapula, 5cm above from lower ankle, it was kept under observation and X-ray was advised.

(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep, 2cm above to injury No. 1, having blackening and tattooing over it.

(iii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep with blackening and tattooing over it.

(iv) lacerated wound of 2cm X 1cm over the left scapula, 3cm below from lower ankle with blackening and tattooing over it.

(v) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X scalp deep over head within right eyebrow with blackening and tattooing over it.

(vi) lacerated wound 1cm X half cm X mussel deep, on the left buttock, 6cm above iliak ubhar with blackening and tattooing over it.

All injuries were kept under observation and referred for X-ray. This report Ex. Ka-5, was prepared under hand writing and signature of this witness, on the back side of letter of police station. These injuries were of firearm shot and fresh.

3. At the same time, in that very night, at 12:20 A.M. of 7.11.2006, he had examined injured Ram Chandar, aged about 30 years, son of Munni Lal, brought by Homeguard as above and found following injuries over his person:-

(i) incised wound of 2cm X 1cm, having margins inverted on the right side of face near right eye.

(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X half cm on the left side of chest, 3cm below collar bone.

These injuries were fresh and caused by sharp edged weapon, for which X-ray was advised and were kept under observation. Medico legal report, under hand writing and signature of this witness, was got prepared on the back of letter of police station, which was proved, exhibited as Ex. Ka-6.

4. In the same night of 6-7.11.2006 at about 11:40 P.M., he had examined injured Suraj Sonkar aged about 40 years son of Bhagirathi Sonkar, resident of Putlighar, P.S. Kotwali Katra, brought by Home Guard as above, and find following injuries:-

(i) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep over forehead, 2cm above right eyebrow with blackening and tattooing around it.

(ii) lacerated wound of 1cm X 1cm X mussel deep over left forearm, 1cm above left wrist joint.

(iii) lacerated wound on the frontal side of little finger with blackening and tattooing.

(iv) various lacerated wound of 1cm X 0.5 cm X mussel deep on the right hand towards front side.

(v) 20cm X 15cm area was with laceration of 12 injuries over abdomen.

(vi) lacerated wound of half cm X 1cm, on the right thigh on back side in the area of 20cm X 10cm, with blackening and tattooing around it.

All the injuries were kept under observation. They were fresh and were all of firearm shot, for which X-ray was advised. Medico legal examination report was prepared under the hand writing and signature of this witness, at the back of chitthi majroobi (Ex.Ka-7).

5. Head Constable Umesh Kumar Pandey, who was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur on 6.11.2006 had registered case crime No. 397 of 2006, vide chik F.I.R. submitted by Vijay Kumar Sonkar (Ex. Ka-1) at police station on 6.11.2006, under his handwriting and signature. The same is with record, proved and exhibited as Ex.Ka-2. Registration of this case crime number was entered in G.D. Entry at report No. 52 at 22:45 hours on the same date of 6.11.2006, under handwriting and signature of this witness and G.D. Entry prepared under one and common process by pasting carbon, was with record as Paper No. 5/3/6, which is under handwriting and signature of this witness, proved and exhibited as Ex. Ka-3 and this original G.D. was weeded in usual course, for which certificate of weeding has been filed on record as Ex. Ka-4. While registering this case crime number, informant along with injured Smt. Guddi Devi, Ram Chandar Sonkar and Suraj Sonakar was present at police station. Their injuries were seen and "chitthi majroobi" (letter for medical examination of injured) were prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness, in which apparent injuries were written by this witness and they are Ex. Ka-5 to Ex. Ka-7. In cross-examination, he has categorically said that informant had brought written report (Ex. Ka-1) with him and this was a wrong contention of him that it was got dictated by this witness at police station.

6. PW-7 as Investigating Officer, Ajay Kumar Rai, who took investigation after registration of this case crime number on the same date of registration of case crime No. 397 of 2006, thereby he entered chik F.I.R., G.D. Entry, medico legal examination report of injured Guddi, Suraj and Ram Chandar, in case diary. He got recorded statement of informant in case diary. On the pointing of informant, he prepared spot map of site visit, under handwriting and signature of this witness, this is with record as paper No. 3/9/3 proved and exhibited as Ex. Ka-8. Which was copied in case diary. Accused Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh were arrested. Their statements were entered in case diary. Statement of injured Ram Chandar and Suraj Sonkar were recorded on 15.11.2006 in case diary, rest two accused persons Bagha @ Ashok was arrested on 29.11.2006 from Putlighar tiraha and his statement was recorded. Statement of Babloo was recorded in C.D. and on the basis of those oral statements, documents, medical evidence, site map, there was sufficient accusation against Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh, Bagha @ Ahok and Shyam, hence, charge-sheet for offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 324 and 436 I.P.C. was prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness, which was sent to Court which is annexed with record as Paper No. 3/9/11. The same is under handwriting and signature and has been proved, exhibited as Ex. Ka-9, over which Magistrate took cognizance.

7. As offence punishable under Sections 307, 436 I.P.C. was exclusively triable by court of Sessions, hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, vide order dated 5.2.2007 committed file to Court of Sessions, which was subsequently transferred to Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Mirzapur. Where after hearing learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the defence, following charges were framed against Chuchu @ Ram @ Ramu @ Ranjeet Singh, Raju @ Ram @ Rajendra Singh, Bagha @ Ashok and Shyam:-

1- ;g fd fnukad 6-11-06 dsk 10 cts jkr cgn eks0 iqryh/kj] tkUgoh gksVy ds ikl v0 Fkkuk dks0 dVjk] es vki ';ke] pwpw] jktw]

ck?kk mQZ v'kksd ,d jk; gksdj vkXus;kL= dVVk] ryokj] ykBh ls yS'k gksdj tku ekjus dh uh;r ls dVVs ls Qk;j dj xqMMh nsoh] jkepUnj o lwjt lksudj dks bl vk'k; o ifjfLFkfr;ks es pksVs igqapk;h fd ;fn nDr pksVks ls mudh e`R;q gks tkrh rks vki yksx ekuo o/k ds vijk/kh gksrsA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 307 dh lifBr /kkjk 34 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA

2- ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vki yksxks us ,d jk; gksdj /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ryokj ls ekjdj jkelqUnj dks xaHkhj pksVsa igqapk;hA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 la0 dh /kkjk 324 dh lifBr /kkjk 34 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gS] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA

3- ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vki yksxks us ,d jk; gksdj oknh fot; dqekj lksudj ds ppsjs HkkbZ jkePkUnj ds jgkb'kh eMbZ es vkx yxkdj fjf"V dkfjr fd;kA bl izdkj ls vki yksxks us Hkk0 na0 lafgrk dh /kkjk 436 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gS] tks esjs izlaKku es gSA

"(i) That on 6.11.2006, at about 10:00 P.M. at Mohall Putlighar near Janhvi Hotel within the area of P.S. Kotwali Katra, Shayam, Chuchu, Raju, Bagha @ Ashok, under joint mensrea armed with firearm weapon katta, sword and lathi-danda, with intention to kill, did fire by katta over Guddi Devi, Ram Chandar and Suraj Sonkar and caused injuries. Under such circumstances that in case of death you would have been punished with offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder thereby you have committed offence punishable under Section 304/34 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court.

(ii) That on above date, time and place you under joint mensrea assaulted Ram Chandar by sharp edged weapon sword, caused grievous hurt punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. within cognizance of above Court.

(iii) That on above date, time and place, you under joint mensrea put at ablaze the residential hut (madhai) of informant's cousin Ram Chandar, thereby committed mischief by fire in place of above, punishable under Section 436 of I.P.C. within the cognizance of above Court".

(English translation by Court itself)

8. Charges were read over to accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

9. Prosecution examined informant Vijay Kumar PW-1, injured Suraj PW-2, injured Smt Guddi Devi PW-3, Daya Shankar PW-4, HC45 Umesh Kumar Pandey PW-5, Dr. U.P. Dwivedi PW-6, Investigating Officer Ajay Kumar Rai (Inspector of Police) PW-7.

10. With a view to obtain explanation, if any, and version of accused persons, their statements were got recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which each of accused persons replied to each of the questions for each of prosecution witnesses to be incorrect and false implication owing to enmity or harassment by informant and injured persons.

11. In defence, no oral evidence or documentary evidence were led by learned counsel for defence.

12. After hearing learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, trial Court passed impugned judgment of conviction for offence punishable under Section 307/34, 324/34 and judgment of acquittal for charge for offence under Section 436 I.P.C. After hearing over quantum of punishment, each of accused persons were sentenced with sentence and fine, written as above.

13. There is no appeal against impugned judgment for judgment of acquittal by State.

14. Learned counsel for appellants argued that impugned judgment and order is against the law and facts on record. There were material contradictions with regard to nature and manner of the case. In the testimony of witnesses of fact i.e PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW4, and they were not in corroboration with the testimony of formal witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. The trial Court failed to appreciate it. PW-1, Vijay Kumar informant was not eye witness account, as has been admitted by him, in his testimony and he has said that report Ex. Ka-1, was got dictated by Sub Inspector and Constable and upon their dictation, it was got written by him. That three persons Ram Chandar, Suraj and Guddi Devi were alleged to be injured but only two Guddi and Suraj have been examined by trial Court. There were several contradictions on their part. Injured Ram Chandar was not examined. In F.I.R. Specific role for giving firearm shot was assigned against Shyam, and Bagha @ Ashok was assigned the role of giving sword assault, rest two have been assigned for giving assault by lathi-danda, but there are no injury of hard and blunt object over any of above injured persons, which itself makes doubt about prosecution case. Injury of sword was not on the person of injured Ram Chandar nor he was examined. Even if, it is presumed to be of sword, it was of a very least dimension with no internal damage, hence, offence could not exceed more than 323 I.P.C. Trial Court failed to appreciate it. Sentence imposed was not commensurate to manner and mode of assault, hence, it was improper.

15. Learned A.G.A. argued that this report was instantly got lodged by informant PW-1, who in his testimony has proved Ex.Ka-1, to be under his handwriting and signature. He immediately put criminal machinery in motion and at the time of his presence at police station, all three injured were present and they were having injuries over their person. Instant preparation of letter for medical examination was made by PW-5 and they were instantly got examined at the District Hospital, Mirzapur, where each of them were having injuries written in Ex.Ka-5, 6, 7. The injuries were fresh and of firearm shot as well as sword. Those injured PW-2, PW-3 have been examined and there is no material contradiction in their testimony, which has been supported and corroborated by medical evidence. Trial Court has rigtly appreciated facts and evidence placed on record.

16. Informant Vijay Kumar PW-1, is not eye witness account of the occurrence. He is only the witness of getting this case crime number lodged and putting criminal machinery in motion. He was at his job at bridge in the night at about 10:00 P.M. on 6.11.2006 where he received information that some firing occurrence had taken place at his village Putlighar resulting injury to many of his family members and he went at police station where Suraj, Guddi Devi and Ram Chandar were injured, they are his family members. Report was under his handwriting and signature and the same is on record as Paper No. 3A/2, which has been proved by this witness to be Ex. Ka-1. In cross-examination, he has said that there was no enmity with accused persons and he was not injured in this occurrence because he was not present on spot at the time of occurrence. He has not witnessed the occurrence and this report Ex. Ka-1, was written under the dictation of Sub Inspector. This has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the convict appellants that the very basis of prosecution story that F.I.R. Ex. Ka-1, is itself doubtful because the person who is informant has said in examination-in-chief that it was got written under dictation of Daroga present at police station, whereas Constable-Clerk who got this case registered at police station under his handwriting and signature has said in his examination-in-chief as PW-5 Umesh Kumar Pandey that he got this case crime number registered upon written report submitted by informant Vijay Kumar Sonkar, who had brought it at police station, which has been exhibited as Ex. Ka-1 and this Chick Ex. Ka-2, G.D. entry Ex. Ka-3 was got prepared under handwriting and signature of this witness at the time of registration. He got "chitthi majroobi" prepared for all those three injured persons and injuries over their person were written in it. In cross-examination, it has specifically been denied by this witness that it was incorrect to say that above Ex. Ka-1, was written at police station under dictation of some police personnel. Hence, the contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 has been cured by this witness PW-5 and no further cross-examination of this witness by learned counsel for the defence was made. Hence, this PW-1, is partly reliable and partly unreliable, specifically for that portion in which he said that Ex. Ka-1, was written under dictation of police personnel and this portion of his testimony is capable of being separated from remaining one, in which putting criminal machinery in motion on the basis of Ex. Ka-1, has been proved by him regarding which there is no material contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment.

17. PW-2 is injured witness whose injuries have been corroborated and proved by evidence of PW-5, who got "chitthi majroobi" prepared and PW-6 Dr. U.P. Dwivedi who had medically examined them, on the basis of above "chitthi majroobi" and had found injuries of that particular duration and time over his person. Hence, presence of this witness on the place of occurrence is undisputed. He, in his testimony, has categorically said that on the date of occurrence i.e. five years back at 10:00 P.M. Jhagdu, his son Chuchu, Ramu, Shyam and their nephew Bagha @ Ashok came to his residence and put hut of Daya Shankar at ablaze. This witness along with his brother Ram Chandar and sister-in-law Guddi (bhabhi) rushed on spot and found Raju armed with katta and he gave firearm shot by above katta over this witness, resulting him injured by firearm shots and metallic pieces are inside his body and this Raju was present in the docket of Court at the time of his testimony, who had given this firearm shot. Bagha @ Ashok was armed with sword and assault by it was made. Each of the four accused persons assaulted over injured resulting injuries to their person. He was got examined at the pretext of police at hospital and report of this case was got lodged by Vijay Kumar Sonkar. This witness was not cross-examined on the date of examination-in-chief rather he was resumed for cross-examination after a long gap, in which he has reiterated his previous statements. He has categorically said that there were three shots and this witness, his brother Ram Chandar and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Guddi Devi had received injury of firearm shot. He had specified the places of person where firearm shot injury was received and regarding it there is no contradiction, embellishment or exaggeration rather upon the totality of his testimony, he proves to be wholly reliable injured witness.

18. PW-3 is also injured witness Guddi Devi, who has said in her examination-in-chief that five years back at about 10:00 P.M., in the night Jhagdu and his son Raju, Shyam, Chuchu and his nephew Bagha @ Ashok came at the residence of witness and Raju put residential hut of Daya Shankar at ablaze. All those were armed with weapon, Raju and Shyam was armed with katta, others weapon could not be told by this witness but she sustained injuries owing to firearm shot given by Shyam and pellets are still in her body which is perceivable. These injured were taken to police station from where to hospital where examined medically and her husband Ram Chanddar, her brother-in-law Suraj (devar) had sustained injury of pellets. Accused persons are of her community to whom she was acquainted with. There is full corroboration in her examination-in-chief. In cross examination, she has categorically said that each accused were armed with katta and who were with sword will be told by her husband. There was one dispute ante to this occurrence. Quarrel was in women of Baish and accused persons. The number of shots was not counted by this witness but she has not suffered injury of lathi nor lathi was seen in the occurrence. She in her examination-in-chief has categorically said that it was Shyam who had given firearm shot over her causing her injuries in the occurrence and her husband Ram Chandar along with her devar Raju had sustained firearm injury in above occurrence. She has categorically given the name of persons who assaulted them i.e. name of convict appellants in her examination-in-chief and there is no cross-examination, substantiative to show any material contradiction, embellishment or exaggeration in her testimony rather there is no cross question to her, in her testimony. Hence, in case of non cross-examination on a fact proved in examination-in-chief, the same is to be treated as uncontroverted and an uncontroverted testimony is to be taken as intact. Hence, she, being injured witness, is fully intact, fully reliable and has proved prosecution case with all corroboration to testimony of PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6.

19. PW-4, Daya Shankar, in his examination-in-chief, has reiterated prosecution case with specific assertion that each of those accused persons did firearm shot over injured, resulting injuries of those three injured persons. Bagha @ Ashok was armed with talwar (sword) and he had given assault by it. This witness was not cross-examined on the day, rather was resumed on the next date and he has reiterated his testimony in Chief. A substantiative question has been put that this witness was not eye witness account and his testimony is incorrect but this has been answered in negative with specific affirmation that he had witnessed this occurrence. Upon over all appraisal of his testimony, he proves to be wholly reliable witness with no material contradiction or exaggeration or embellishment.

20. PW-7 I.O. Ajay Kumar Rai has formally proved his investigation written as above and exhibits proved by him. His cross-examination is very sketchy i.e. less than half page i.e his examination-in-chief was not controverted, hence, uncontroverted testimony on oath is taken as such, he is fully reliable witness.

21. Apex Court in State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And others, Death Reference Case No. 1 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1990, decided on 15.7.1992, has observed as under:-

"Section 313 of the code is a statutory provision and embodies the fundamental principle of fairness based on the maxim audi alteram partem. It is trite law that the attention of the accused must be specifically invited to inculpatory pieces of evidence or circumstances laid on record with a view to giving him an opportunity to offer an explanation if he chooses to do so. The section imposes a heavy duty on the court to take great care to ensure that the incriminating circumstances are put to the accused and his response solicited. The words `shall question him' clearly bring out the mandatory character of the clause and cast an imperative duty on the court and confer a corresponding right on the accused to an opportunity to offer his explanation for such incriminating material appearing against him, which has surfaced on record."

22. In the present case, testimony of all Pws were put to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to convict appellants and each of convict appellant has answered to each question "galat hai" "galat hai" and in the last "rangishan pareshan". Meaning thereby, the facts deposed by prosecution witnesses over which no cross examination was made by learned counsel for the defence and which were uncontroverted testimonies reliable to be taken intact, were put under question and each questions were answered in a lame way. It itself reveals that accused persons were not intended to explain or offer any explanation over those incriminating material surfaced on record.

23. On the other hand, if the discrepancies are not normal and are not expected to a normal person, those are material discrepancies. Normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of witness or party's case but material discrepancies do so. As has been propounded by Apex Court in Sayed Ibrahim Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 34 that deposition being precise, concise, specific and vivid, without any improvement or embroidery is worth acceptance in toto. In the present case, the testimony of those three witnesses are of that category.

24. So far as non examination of Ram Chandar is concerned, Apex Court in Major Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab (2006) 10 SCC 499, Lallu Manjhi & Anr vs State of Jharkhand AIR 2003 SC 854 has propounded that credible, fully reliable, wholly trustworthy, proving prosecution case by single testimony is sufficient for basing conviction. Law never requires that so many number of witnesses are required to be examined by prosecution.

25. The Apex Court in Munshi Prasad And Ors vs State Of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 351, has laid that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity, which is required. Test is, has the prosecution been able to bring him the charges with the evidence available on record? If evidence on record is otherwise satisfactory and trustworthy, an increasing number of witnesses, is not required.

26. Discrepancies in testimony of witnesses, if does not affect the core of prosecution case, testimony cannot be discorded. Hence, upon over all appreciation of evidence placed on record, and in light of precedent and provision of Code, trial Court has rightly and cogently passed the impugned judgment of conviction against convict appellants. There is no illegality or irregularity in it.

27. In the present case, after hearing learned counsels for both sides, proper and adequate sentence have been passed by learned Trial Judge that is in commensurate with severity and nature of offence, on the point of sentence too, appeal is devoid of merit.

28. Both of the appeals merit dismissal, hence, dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 11.4.2019

Kamarjahan