Gopal Bagti Son Of Late Manga Ram Bagti vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2522 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Bagti Son Of Late Manga Ram Bagti vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 918 of 2006

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2006 and Order
of sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial
No.227 of 2004]

Gopal Bagti son of late Manga Ram Bagti, resident of
Bandgaon, P.S. Bandgaon, District-West Singhbhum.
                                   ...    ...      Appellant
                         Versus
The State of Jharkhand             ...    ...    Respondent

                        PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
                            .....
     For the Appellant   : Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
                         : Mr. Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
     For the Respondent  : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP.
                           .....

C.A.V. on 23.01.2025         Pronounced on 11/02/2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeals are directed Judgment of conviction

dated 03.04.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2006,

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court-I, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.227 of 2004 arising

out of Bandgaon P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 (G.R. Case No.131

of 2004) registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Prevention of Witch

(DAAIN) Practices Act for committing murder of Soma @

Nathu Ram Munda and his wife Bangi Mundarin by which

the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo

imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Factual Matrix

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality

and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of

institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief

as per the allegation made in the First Information Report

reads hereunder as :-

3. According to the fardbeyan of the informant Jawani

Mundarin daughter of Soma Nathu Ram Munda on the

preceding night (14.6.04) after taking food she went to sleep

in the room along with her mother while her father slept in

another room. In the mid night about 1"o" clock one person

forced upon the door of the room and entered. She enquired

and came out of the room. It was raining outside. He asked

her to put on light. In the light she identified him as Gopal

Bagti who lived in Bandgaon. He was carrying Chapad

(sharp edge weapon) in his hand.

4. Gopal Bagti told her to put off the light, when she

enquired, he disclosed that her parent, were Witch and they

were responsible for the death of his children and as such he

is going to kill them. He also threatened her that if she raised

hulla she will also be murdered. She did not put off the light

Gopal Bagti started inflicting repeated blows on the head of

his father. The informant tried to run away but accused did

not allow her to escape. Her father started writhing in pain.

When her mother got up Gopal Bagti assaulting her with the

chapad.

5. The informant somehow managed to flee away and

started raising hulla. It was raining outside and no body

gathered on her cries. After sometime Gopal Bagti fled away

from the place of occurrence. The informant returned back to

her house and saw her parents (mother & father) dead in a

pool of blood.

6. She has also stated that her brother lives in Lupungdih

village with his family. It was not possible to give the

information in the night. She informed the matter in the

morning and subsequently the police and the village Munda

reached her house.

7. On the basis of the statement of the informant, FIR

being Bandgaon Police Station Case No. 14/04 dated

15.06.2004 was registered against the accused under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4/5/6 of

the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act and after due

investigation chargesheet was submitted against the

appellant.

8. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed

to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 302 of the

IPC was framed to which the accused person pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution has altogether examined 08 witnesses,

namely, P.W-1 Jawanee Mundarin, informant, P.W-2 Dobo

Munda, P.W- 3 Budhwa Munda, P.W-4 Dr. Umendra Prasad,

M.O., P.W-5 Belo Mundarin, P.W-6 Mangal Munda, P.W-7

Sao Mundari, and P.W-8 Rameshwar Kr. Singh, Investigating

Officer (I.O).

10. The Defence has not examined any witness in support

of his case.

11. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of

witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination,

recorded the statement of the accused person, found the

charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all

reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been

found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is

subject matter of instant appeal.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence

passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of

law.

14. The following grounds have been taken by the learned

counsel for the appellants in assailing the impugned judgment

of conviction: -

(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in this

case and the prosecution case suffers from several

infirmities and improbabilities.

(ii) The ground has been taken that the conviction

since is based upon the solitary eye witness, P.W-1

(informant) without having been fully corroborated

by the other evidences and as such conviction

cannot be said to be based on sound reasoning.

(iii) Further the statement of sole eyewitness suffers

from several inconsistencies and does not appear

to be reliable and trustworthy.

(iv) No independent witnesses have come forward in

support of this fact and manner of occurrence does

not receive my corroboration from any quarter.

(v) Further the seized weapon which has been alleged

to be used in the said commission of the crime has

not been send to FSL for finger impression.

(vi) Further, no motive has been brought forward by

the prosecution and in the absence of any motive it

is not safe to rely upon the evidence of solitary

witnesses since the most of other witnesses are the

hearsay witnesses.

(vii) Further the conduct of the informant after the

incident was not natural reason being that in her

fardbeyan she had stated that her own brother,

resides in the Lupungdih which was located very

near from alleged place of occurrence then in such

circumstances question arises herein that why

informant had not informed his brother about the

incident in the night itself rather she has

informed her brother in the morning about the said

incident, therefore the reliability of the prosecution

story appears to be doubtful and concocted.

(viii) The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon

the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the trial

court has not taken in to consideration of the

aforesaid facts as such impugned judgment

required interference, hence not sustainable in the

eyes of law.

15. While defending the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence, learned APP appearing for the State raised the

following arguments in response to the grounds as referred

hereinabove:

(i) It is a case where the prosecution has been able to

prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt,

since as per the eyewitness the assault was

inflicted upon the deceased by the appellant.

(ii) All the prosecution witnesses have conclusively

supported the prosecution version, particularly,

informant who resides along with her deceased

parents.

(iii) So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the

appellants that there cannot be conviction on the

basis of solitary eye witness, the submission has

been made that if the testimony of the eye witness

is fully trustworthy then there is no bar in passing

the judgment of conviction on the basis of the

testimony of the solitary eye witness. The learned

counsel for the State in order to fortify their

argument have relied upon the judgment rendered

by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Namdeo vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 14 SCC

150.

(iv) Learned counsel for the State has further

submitted that the solitary eye witness since has

gracefully made meticulous description of the

occurrence, which has been corroborated by

medical evidence and other witnesses, as such the

evidence of sole eye witness is to be fully relied

upon while proving the charge against accused

persons as it is settled principle of law that quality

of witness matters and not the quantity of witness.

(v) So far question of motive is concerned, it has

specifically been stated by the informant in her

fardbeyan that accused just before the said

occurrence, had stated her that her parents

(deceased persons) are Witch and they had

destroyed his child, so it cannot be said that

motive is absent in the case at hand.

(vi) So far, the issue of not sending the blood-stained

soil and seized weapon to the FSL is concerned,

the case of prosecution cannot be disbelieved on

the aforesaid score as an eye witness and other

witnesses have fully supported the case of the

prosecution.

(vii) The occurrence has been corroborated by the

medical evidence wherein the Doctor has found the

nature of injuries having been caused by sharp

cutting substance and the injury has also been

found over the dead body of the deceased.

(viii) Learned APP appearing for the State based upon

the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the

impugned judgment does not suffer from any error,

hence the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.

Analysis

16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused

the documents available on record as also the finding recorded

by the trial court in the impugned judgment.

17. We have also gone through the testimonies of the

witnesses as available in the LCR as also the exhibits.

18. Learned trial court, based upon the testimonies of

witnesses, has passed the judgment of conviction convicting

the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence

under Section 302 of the IPC.

19. This Court before considering the argument advanced

on behalf of the parties is now proceeding to consider the

deposition of witnesses, as per the testimony as recorded by

learned trial Court.

20. In this case the prosecution has examined altogether

eight witnesses. PW.4 Dr. Umendra Prasad has conducted the

post-mortem examination on 15.6.04 on the dead body of

Nathu Ram Munda and his wife Bangi Mundarin.

21. On the post-mortem examination of the dead body of

Nathu Ram Munda, he found following injuries:

External:

(1) Sharp cutting injury on middle of the scalp 4"x1/2" x 1" with fracture of the bone.

(2) Sharp cutting injury on right parietal bone 2"x1"x1/2".

(3) Sharp cutting injury on right ear 1.1/2"x1"x1/2"

(4) Sharp cutting injury on night eyebrow 3x1& 1/2" x1"

(5) Sharp cutting injury of the figures of right hand.

1"x1/2"x skin deep.

Internal:

Scalp: fracture of middle and right parietal bone. Blood matter in cranial cavity, Injury 2 brain matter. Chest & Abdomen: no blood in chest cavity, Heart: Both chambers empty. Liver, lungs & spleen NAD, Stomach empty. Bladder: About 60 ml of urine.

Cause of death: due to hemorrhage and shock by sharp and hard substance. Due to injury on scalp.

Time since death 6 to 24 hours

22. On the same day he conducted post-mortem,

examination of the dead body of Bangi Mundarin and found

the following External injuries:

(1) Sharp cutting injury on middle of the scalp 4"x1 & ½"x1/2"

(2) Sharp cut injury on left eyebrow 2 & ½"x1"x1/2"

(3) Sharp cut injury on left ear3"x1x"1/2" with fracture left parietal bone

(4) abrasion on right hand 4"x1"& ½"x1/2"

(5) Bruise on chest on both sides.

Internal Examination:

Scalp: blood in cranial cavity with fracture of scalp bone and injury to brain matter. Chest & abdomen: blood in chest cavity with fracture ribs of both sides. Heart: both chambers empty. Liver & Lungs: lacerated. Stomach & Bladder: empty

Time since death. 6 to 24 hours.

Cause of death: due to hemorrhage and shock on above mentioned injuries.

All the injuries caused by sharp and hard substance except injury no 4 rough hard and sharp substance injury no.5 blunt and hard substances.

23. Both post-mortem examinations have been prepared by

him and bears his signature, which are marked as Ext-2 & 3

respectively.

24. P.W-2 Dobo Munda is the son of deceased. He has

stated that on 15.6.04 the police had prepared two inquest

reports in his presence. He had put his signature on both,

which were marked as Ext-1 & 1/1. He has also stated that a

list was prepared regarding the blood-stained soil and the

blood-stained weapon, this is marked as Ext-1/2. He has

stated that Gopal Bagti committed murder of his parents.

In the cross examination, he has stated that he resides

separately in another house in the same Village.

25. PW-3 Budhwa Munda is the village Munda. He is

hearsay witness. He has heard about the murder of Nathu

Ram Munda and his wife Bagi Mandarin. He had gone to the

place of occurrence along with the police, saw the dead bodies

where two inquests, were prepared. He has put the signature

on both the inquest which are marked as Ext-1/3 & 1/4. He

has also proved the signature on the seizure list which is

marked as Exbt-1/5. The fardbeyan of Jawani Mundarin was

recorded in his presence, he has signed on the fardbeyan as a

witness. This is marked as Ext-1/6.

26. PW-5 Belo Mundarin is daughter of deceased and sister

of the informant. She had stated that after her marriage she

lived in her "Sasural" (Father-in-law house) and the time of

occurrence she was in her "Sasural". She came after getting

the information then her sister(informant) told her that Gopal

Bagti committed murder of her parents. She has supported

this fact that her brother Dobo Munda lived separately in

another tolla (colony) and he also came after getting

information of the incident.

27. P.W-6 Mangal Munda is the son-in-law of the deceased

and husband of PW-5 Belo Mundarin. He has stated that he

was not present on the date of occurrence in the village. After

getting information he reached there and saw the dead bodies.

He has also stated that the police had recorded the statement

Jawanee Mundarin (P.W-1). Jawanee Mundarin had also

narrated the entire incident to him.

28. P.W-7 Sao Mundari has stated that about one and half

years back murder of Soma@ Nathu Ram Munda and his wife

had taken place. Dobo (P.W-2) had informed him about the

incident. Dobo had also disclosed that Gopal Bagti committed

murder of his parents. After getting the information he went

there and saw both the dead bodies and also saw marks of

injuries on the dead bodies and he had further stated that

blood-stained weapon was also lying there.

29. P.W.1 Jawanee Mundarin is the informant of this case.

She had narrated on the same line and in tune of statement

given by her in fardbeyan and has stated that on the date of

occurrence at about 12 o'clock in the night she was sleeping

inside the house when Gopal Bagti opened the door and came

inside the house. She had identified Gopal Bagti in the light

and he was carrying a sharp-edged weapon in his hand.

30. She had further deposed that Gopal Bagti put off the

light and started assaulting his parents with the weapon. After

some time, she managed to fled away from the place of

occurrence. She returned after some time and saw both her

father and mother were dead. Blood was spread all over.

31. She had also testified that her brother lived in

Lapungdih tolla. She informed her brother in the morning and

subsequently police came and her statement was recorded in

presence of the village Munda. The village Munda has also put

his signature as a witness.

In the cross examination, she had categorically stated

that Gopal Bagti had directed her to put off lamp (Dibri). She

has put on Dibri. Gopal Bagti first assaulted her father and

then her mother. In para-10 she has categorically stated that

she had witnessed the assault inflicted upon her father and

then she fled away. She has also made efforts to wake her

neighbours but they did not come.

32. P.W-8 Rameshwar Kumar Singh is the investigating

officer of this case. He had stated that the fardbeyan was

recorded by the then officer-in-charge Kuldeep Toppo

Bandgaon P. S. He has proved handwriting and signature on

the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext-4, while the

endorsement is marked as Exbt-4/1. The formal FIR has been

marked as Exbt-4/2. After assuming charge of investigation,

he went to the place of occurrence where he prepared two

inquests, in presence of the village Munda (P.W-3) and Dobo

Munda (P.W-2). He has proved his handwriting and signature

upon both the inquest reports, which were marked as Ext.-

5/1. Seizure list of blood-stained soil and the blood-stained

sharp edge weapon was prepared. He has put the handwriting

and signature, which was marked as Ext-6.

33. It is evident from the record that the instant case had

been registered for commission of double murder by the

accused/appellant Gopal Bagti. Admittedly he has been

named in F.I.R. at the very first instance by the informant who

is the sole eyewitness of the case and he is the sole accused of

the alleged crime.

34. Thus, the point for consideration of the instant case is

whether the prosecution on the basis of testimony of sole

eyewitness has succeeded to bring home the charges leveled

against accused/appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable

doubts or not?

35. This Court, in order to appreciate the submissions

advanced on behalf of the appellants with respect to the

culpability of the appellants, of commission of offence under

Section 302 the Indian Penal Code vis-à-vis the evidences

adduced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to

refer certain judicial pronouncements in context of contention

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

36. It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the case is based upon solitary eyewitness

which has not been fully corroborated by the cogent evidences.

37. Per contra learned APP for state has contended that if

the testimony of the eye witness is fully trustworthy then there

is no bar in passing the judgment of conviction on the basis of

the testimony of the solitary eye witness.

38. In the aforesaid context this court thinks fit to discuss

the evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness. It is settled

proposition of law that the judgment of conviction can be

passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but the

testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire

confidence in the mind of the Court.

39. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on

the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic

of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are

doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on

corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but

the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is

that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is

whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible

and trustworthy, or otherwise.

40. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction

can be passed also on the basis of the testimony of sole

witness but the testimony of said witness should be

trustworthy as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.,

(2010) 12 SCC 91 paragraphs 30 to 34 of the said

judgment are being referred hereunder as :-

"30. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and the rest i.e.

depositions of PW 2 to PW 8, could be treated merely as hearsay. The same cannot be relied upon for conviction.

31. In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court repelled a similar submission observing that:

(SCC p. 371, para 9) "9. ... as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration."

In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

32. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra this Court reiterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.

33. In Kunju v. State of T.N., a similar view has been reiterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court including Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras.

34. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness has no force and is negatived accordingly."

41. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuriya

and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has

held as under: -

" 33. ---The Court has stated the principle that, as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable and base the conviction on the testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness."

42. Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @

Amit vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under:-

"11. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which has rightly affirmed the trial court's view. It is true that the accused have managed to win over the complainant PW 4 Karambir Yadav, but the evidence of PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav bears out the prosecution case. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence. This witness has meticulously narrated the incident and supported the prosecution case. We find him to be a reliable witness."

43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sheelam Ramesh v.

State of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 in Para -18 held as follows:-

"18. According to learned counsel for the accused appellants, though PW 3 has deposed that 10-15 persons were in the vicinity at the time of occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. There is nothing on evidence to show that there was any other eyewitness to the occurrence. Having examined all the eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby were not examined, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded. Courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence."

44. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion it is

apparent that the conviction can be based on the evidence of a

sole eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence reason

being that Courts are concerned with quality and not with

quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial as per the statute

there is no legal impediment on relying upon the testimony of

sole eyewitness.

45. At this juncture, this Court thinks fit to revisit the

testimony of the witnesses particularly the sole eyewitness, in

the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition.

46. In the instant case on perusal of the evidence it is clear

that the informant (PW-1) has categorically stated in the

fardbeyan that she lived with her parents in the house while

her brother Dobo Munda (P.W-2) lived separately with his

family in a different tolla and another daughter of the deceased

namely Belo Mundarin (P.W-5) got married to Mangal Munda

(P. W-6) and was living in her "Sasural". Thus, it is evident

that the informant (P.W.1) was living with her parents and no

other family members were residing in the house at the time of

occurrence. As such there is no infirmities or inconsistencies

on this point.

47. Further, in the present case the statement of the

witness (PW-1) receives corroboration regarding the factum of

the incident that the matter was reported to P. W-2 and village

Munda and other prosecution witnesses have supported this

fact and all of them have rather corroborated the statement of

the informant regarding the involvement of the accused Gopal

Bagti.

48. Further, the evidence of P.W-1 is consistent on the point

that on the date of occurrence at about mid night the accused

forcibly broke upon the door, directed the informant to lit dibri

and in the light the informant saw the accused standing there

carrying a "Chapad" (sharp edge weapon) in his hand. The

accused came with purpose and disclosed his mind to the

informant that he is going to kill her parent as they indulged

into witch craft and caused the death of his children.

49. Therefore, it is apparent that the accused having well

established motive for committing the alleged crime and as

such the contention of the learned counsel that there is no

motive behind the alleged crime is not tenable.

50. Further, even if it is presumed that commission of crime

of double murder lacks motive or the same as alleged having

not been corroborated in the testimony of witness the question

arises that on this ground can the entire prosecution story can

be disbelieved.

51. In the case of State of A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah,

(1986) 3 SCC 637 the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically

observed that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable

nature regarding the commission of an offence the question of

motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. For ready

reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

"11. ----- Another failing in the judgment is that the High Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove adequate motive for the commission of the offence without bearing in mind the well settled rule that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of an offence the question of motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. Lastly, we find that the High Court has, evolved a theory of its own, without there being any material to support it, and premised that the occurrence must have taken place during darkness, and subsequently the respondents must have been implicated on account of suspicion."

52. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Kumar Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police (2018) 7

SCC 536, wherein at paragraph 33 it has been held as under:

"33. Coming to the other aspect of the case, motive of the accused to commit the crime is ascribed to the previous quarrel occasioned between the accused and the deceased during a drama at a village festival. Generally, in the case prosecution desires to place motive of the accused as a circumstance, like any other incriminating circumstance, it should also be fully established. We are alive to the fact that if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.----"

53. Since from the aforesaid legal deduction it is apparent

that the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence

could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of

motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. In the

instant case, on the point of occurrence the testimony of P.W.1

who is the sole eyewitness is even unshaken throughout her

lengthy cross examination, thus in the fact and circumstances

of the instant case motive is not very much material.

54. Further it was argued on behalf of the learned counsel

for the appellant that the most of the witnesses including the

sole eyewitness (P.W-1) is related to the deceased and since no

independent witness has been examined, thus in such

circumstances prosecution case has no leg to stand.

55. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant has no substance. This theory was repelled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip Singh and Ors vs. State of

Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 in which surprise was expressed

over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the

members of the Bar that the relatives were not the

independent witness. Relevant paragraph-26 reads as under:

"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged

on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."

56. Again, in Masalti and Ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

AIR 1965 SC 202, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that

there is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate

evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it

has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or

not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not

evidence strikes the court as genuine whether or not the story

disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which

must be taken into account. But it would be unreasonable to

contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded

only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested

witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and

murders are committed as a result of enmity between such

factions, criminal courts have to deal with such evidence of a

partisan type with great care. The mechanical rejection of

such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would

invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can

be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated.

Judicial approach has to be cautions in dealing with such

evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected

because it is partisan, cannot be accepted as correct.

57. Thus, it is well settled that evidence of a relative or

interested witness cannot be discarded merely on the point of

relationship. It is well known that the testimony of relative

witnesses cannot be treated to be interested or partition

witnesses. In the instant case no evidence has come on record

that the informant and her family members had any enmity

with the accused/appellant, rather the occurrence had taken

place under illusory inhibitions suffered by the

accused/appellant Gopal Bagti.

58. The learned counsel for the appellant has further

contended that seized weapon which has been alleged to be

used in the said commission of the crime has not been sent to

FSL for finger impression, therefore prosecution has no case to

stand on its own.

59. It needs to refer herein that it is settled position of law

that if the prosecution version is supported by the eye witness,

the non-sending of the blood-stained weapon for its

examination to Forensic Scientific Laboratory will not vitiate

the prosecution story.

60. This defect in investigation is not found fatal to the

prosecution case because the prosecution case is based on

direct evidence. In case of a direct evidence, the production of

the weapon used in the commission of the crime and not

sending the same to FSL for examination will not be fatal to

prosecution case and no adverse inference can be drawn. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Hakam

Singh reported in (2005) 7 SCC 408 at paragraph 13 has

held as under :-

"13. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that no firearms were recovered and no seizure has been made of empties. It would have been better if this was done and it would have corroborated the prosecution story. Seizure of the firearms and recovering the empties and sending them for examination by the ballistic expert would have only corroborated the prosecution case but by not sending them to the ballistic expert in the present case is not fatal in view of the categorical testimony of PW 3 about the whole incident."

61. Admittedly in the instant case the Investigating Officer

did not do some part of investigation, which he was required

to do. But the faulty investigation made by the Investigating

Officer does not prejudice the accused and cannot be fatal for

the prosecution case. Illegality of Investigation is not material,

if the testimony of the eyewitness to the occurrence is true.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Dhanaj

Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 3 SCC 654 has categorically

observed that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent

investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory

investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the

people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing agency

but also in the administration of justice. The Hon'ble Apex

Court has further observed that when the direct testimony of

the eyewitnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully

establishes the prosecution version, failure or omission or

negligence on the part of the IO cannot affect the credibility of

the prosecution version.

62. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position we

would like to revisit the testimony of sole eyewitness of the

case. From factual aspects it is evident that in the instant case

the solitary eyewitness (P.W-1) Jawanee Mundarin is a rustic

village woman and is an eyewitness of the ghastly incident in

which her parents were brutally murdered in front of her eyes

and there are no material contradictions in her statement

regarding the manner of occurrence and also regarding the

participation of the accused/appellant.

63. P.W.1 has categorically testified that the

accuse/appellant has conveyed his intentions and there after

the accused/appellant started causing indiscriminate assault

with "chapad" on the sleeping father of the informant and

subsequently her mother. As per the testimonies of other

witnesses since the informant had been living with her parent

and she was present at the time of occurrence. Her statement

is consistent regarding the manner of the occurrence and the

involvement of the sole accused Gopal Bagti.

64. Further, the medical evidence corroborates the

statement of the Informant. Doctor found several ante-

mortem injuries on the dead body of Nathu Ram Munda. Like

sharp cut injury on the middle scalp, right parietal bone, right

eyebrow and sharp cut injury on all fingers. The doctor also

found several ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Bangi

Mundarin like sharp cut injury on the scalp, sharp cut injury

on left eyebrow, sharp cut injury on the left ear with fracture

of left parietal bone etc.

65. The above-mentioned injuries apparently proved the fact

and corroborates the statement of the informant that the

accused had inflicted repeated blows from the "Chapad"(a kind

of sharp cutting weapon) on the vital parts of both the

deceased persons.

66. Thus, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the

place of occurrence. All the material witnesses have supported

the fact that the dead bodies of both deceased were found in

their house and the dead bodies were seen by the prosecution

witnesses. The inquest report and the seizure list also proved

this fact. The inquest was prepared inside the house of the

deceased and the blood-stained weapon used in the

commission of murder was also seized from the same place.

67. Thus, the statement of the of the eyewitness P.W-1 who

is a natural witness and her presence cannot be disputed at

the time of occurrence. Further, the statement of the

eyewitness is consistent and there is no infirmities or

improvement have been made in the statement.

68. Thus, on the basis of discussion made herein above, it

is evident that it is case of double murder and the entire case

is based upon the statement of the informant who is the sole

eyewitness of the case. From the fardbeyan itself it is clear

that the informant was the only person who was present in the

house at the time of occurrence and the occurrence took place

in the mid night. Possibility of other witness was ruled out and

this fact has come in the statement that the brother of the

informant lived with his family in another "Basti/tolla."

69. It has also come in the evidence that the occurrence

happened in the mid night and it was raining, therefore, the

informant had not informed the incident to her brother

immediately in the night. However, from the testimony of the

P.W.1 it is evident that the informant has not been cross-

examined on this point by the defence that why she had not

informed the said incident to her brother in the fateful night

itself.

70. As this Court has already discussed in the preceding

paragraphs that the evidence of the informant cannot be

brushed aside only because she is a relative of the deceased. It

is well settled that evidence of relative witnesses should not be

discarded merely on account of relationship. Further this

Court has also observed that it is a case which rest entirely

upon the evidence of the informant and court has to look into

quality of the witness evidence and not the quantity of the

witness. Further, other prosecution witnesses have supported

the factum the prosecution who has brought forward reason of

commission of this brutal murder. It has come in the

fardbeyan that the accused has illusion that the deceased

were instrumental in causing death of his children and were

involved in to the evil practice of Witch crafting, thus motive

was there for committal of ghastly crime of double murder and

further the medical evidence has supported the factum of the

prosecution and the manner of occurrence as the post-mortem

report substantiate the alleged occurrence as the doctor has

found several multiple cut injuries on the body of both the

dead bodies. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving

its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.

71. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect

and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the

learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court

after giving its thoughtful consideration to the testimony of

sole eye witness has come to the conclusion that the

prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all

shadow of doubt against the present appellant, therefore,

order impugned requires no interference by this Court.

72. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

73. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court

concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.

       (Navneet Kumar, J.)                   (Navneet Kumar, J.)


Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 11th February, 2025.
Birendra /   A.F.R.