A. Janpal @ D.K. S/o Late A. Rameshwar Rao Aged About 25 Years Resident v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3574-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 306 of 2024 A. Janpal @ D.K. S/o Late A. Rameshwar Rao Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Sector-6, Sadak No. 56, Quarter No. 4 A, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 460 of 2024 G. Ramesh S/o G. Sudhakar Aged About 21 Years R/o Sector 6, Street 57, Quater 3e, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent/State : : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Hon'ble Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Judgment on Board 2 Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 21/01/2025 1. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of the same crime number, same sessions trial and from common judgment, therefore they are being heard and decided together. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2020, at about 7:30 PM near School No. 2 behind Ispat Club, Sector 6, Bhilai, B. Ashish/PW- 2, his friend D. Manish (deceased) and his elder father D. Ramesh were chatting with each other. At that time, the appellants came there and raised quarrel with D. Manish on the issue of old enmity. At that very moment, the appellant A. Janpal @ DK caught hold the deceased D. Manish from his backside and then the appellant G. Ramesh started giving knife blows on the body of D. Manish. Before the witnesses PW-2 and D. Ramesh could understand the situation, both the appellants brutally assaulted the deceased and fled away. The deceased received number of injuries on his head, chest and back, by which he went in unconsciousness. He immediately taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai from where Dr. S. Dheeraj/PW-6 given the MLC Intimation/Exhibit P-17 to Police Station Sector-6, Bhilai. 3 Looking to the condition of the deceased, he was shifted to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment on 03.09.2020. The FIR/Exhibit P-10 was lodged by B. Ashish/PW-2 against both the appellants, which has been registered under Sections 307, 34 of IPC. The death intimation of the deceased was sent to the jurisdictional Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur who in turn have sent it to the Bhilai Nagar Police Station. The inquest of the dead body of the deceased/Exhibit P-8 was prepared by the Moudhapara Police Station, Raipur on 03.09.2020 in presence of the witnesses. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where PW-10/Dr. A.K. Jaiswani conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report/Exhibit P-22. During the post-mortem, the doctor has noticed the following injuries on his body. Exhibit P-21. During the post-mortem, the doctor has noticed the following injuries on his body: 1. Contusion of size 4cm x 4cm present over left forehead, reddish. 2. Stitched wound of length 4cm present obliquely over left mastoid region. 3. Stab wound of size 3.5cm x 0.8cm x pleural cavity deep present obliquely over right side of chest, 4cm above right nipple, directing obliquely upwards and towards midline and puncturing middle lobe of right lung and right atrium, margins clean cut and one angle is acute. 4 4. Stab wound of size 2.5cm x 1.5cmx pleural cavity deep present vertically over right chest, 12 cm below sternal angle and 3cm from midline, directing obliquely backwards and towards midline, puncturing lower lobe of right lung, margins clean cut and one angle is acute. 5. Surgical intervention seen as stitched intercostal drain wound present over lateral aspect of right side of chest, no oozing. 6. Stab wound of size 1.5cm x 1cm x pleural cavity deep present vertically over left side of chest, 18cm below sternal angle and 2cm from midline, directing backwards and puncturing pericardium and right ventricle of heart, margins clean cut and one angle is acute. 7. Stab wound of size 2.5cm x 1.5cm x pleural cavity deep present obliquely over left side of chest, 4cm below left nipple and 11cm from midline, directing backwards and obliquely upwards towards midline, puncturing lower lobe of left lung, margins clean cut and one angle is acute. 8. Stab wound of size 2.5cm x 1.5cm x muscle deep present over left lower back, 4cm from midline and 29cm below left angle of scapula, margins clean cut and one angle is acute. 4. On his internal examination he found the following injuries: 1. खोपड़ी, कपाल और कशेरूका का- Scalp-Underscalp haematoma of size 5cm x 5cm present over left frontal region. Skull vault and base- Intact. 1. परदा, पसली और कोमलस्व- Multiple cut fracture present over 2nd and 3rd rib on right side (corresponding to injury no. 3 and 4 on page 3) and 6th and 7th rib on right side (corresponding to injury no. 6 and 7 on page no.3), with extravasation of blood in surrounding intercostals muscles. 5 And opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to multiple stab injuries over thorax and the manner of death is homicidal. The cloth tied on the body of the deceased, one piece of cotton having blood stains and plain cotton have been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-6). Seizure memo (exhibit P-11) was prepared by the police and Exhibit P-9 was prepared by the Revenue Inspector, Sector-6, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. When the victim was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, he was medically examined by PW-6/Dr. S. Dheeraj, who gave his MLC report (exhibit P-16). He found certain sharp cut injuries on the body of the deceased. The MLC intimation (exhibit P-17) was also given by the doctor to the concerned police at Bhilai. The police had tried to record the dying declaration of the deceased, but the deceased was not in the condition to record his statement, which has been certified by the doctor (PW-6) and gave his opinion vide exhibit P-18. The blood stained and plain soil have also been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-23). The viscera of the dead body of the deceased was also preserved and sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur, from where viscera report (exhibit P-32) was received and according to the report, no poisonous substance were found on the viscera of the deceased. The appellants were arrested on 03.09.2020. Their memorandum statement/Exhibit P-1 (G. Ramesh) and Exhibit P-2 (A. Janpal @ DK) was recorded and based on the memorandum statement of the appellant G. Ramesh, one knife has been seized on his instance near boundary wall Sport Club Sector-6 and seized vide 6 seizure memo (exhibit P-3). The half t-shirt and half pant of the appellant G. Ramesh has also been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-4). On the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant A. Janpal @ DK, one sports t-shirt and sports half pant have been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-5). The seized knife and clothes of the appellants were sent for its query report to the doctor. The query and its answer is reproduced here in below: Query 1:- Whether the injuries caused by the knife brought by lethal (life threatening)? Answer for Query 1:- As the injury was stab injuries and it was penetrating injury, on examination sharp cut right chest 4x0.5 cm, sharp cut right chest near to mediastinum 2.5 cm, sharp cut left chest 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, sharp cut injury in right lumbar region 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm, sharp cut injury in left retro aurical region, so it could lead to death if the knife penetrated in depth and injures internal organ, but by external examination depth of injury could not be known. So exact opinion could not be given and after primary treatment patient was referred to higher center. So far as details of injury and exact opinion to be taken by concerned surgeon or attending doctor. Query 2:- Whether the clothes found at this site of incidence and wore by victim Manish does the red marks are human blood? Answer to Query 2:- The red stain found on the clothes could be of human blood, but for exact opinion followed article to be sent for chemical analysis in forensic department. Query 3:- Whether the red stains obtained on clothes belongs to same group? 7 Answer to Query 3:- The red stains obtained may belong to human blood and for differentiating group and exact opinion, cloth should be sent for chemical analysis in forensic department. 5. The t-shirt and pant seized from the appellant A. Janpal @ DK, t-shirt and pant seized from the appellant G. Ramesh, knife seized from the appellant G. Ramesh and clothes of the deceased and also the blood stained and plain soil seized from the spot were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur, from where report/exhibit P-31 was received. According to the FSL report, except the cotton piece (article-I and K) and plain soil (article-M) blood has been found on the rest of the articles sent for chemical examination, however human blood was found on t-shirt and pant of the appellant A. Janpal @ DK (article A and B). T-shirt of the appellant G. Ramesh (article C), cloth of the deceased (article F and G) and blood-stained cotton piece (article H), human blood was found, whereas the blood of other articles were disintegrated and their origin could not be determined. Statement of the witnesses under section 161 of CRPC have been recorded. Statement of the witnesses B. Ashish and Ramesh under section 164 of CRPC have also been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for the offence under sections 302, 34 of IPC. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Durg for its trial. 6. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant G. Ramesh for the offence under sections 302/34 of IPC and section 25(1-B)B of Arms Act, 1959, however the charge against the other 8 appellant A. Janpal @ DK has been framed under sections 302/34 of IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution 8. 9. has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. The appellant G. Ramesh has submitted that the deceased was a known criminal and having various offences registered against him and he is falsely implicated in the case along with other accused persons. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant G. Ramesh from the offence of section 25(1-B)B of Arms Act and has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant G. Ramesh (CRA No. 460 of 2024) would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses are inconsistent and not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The evidence of so-called eyewitnesses does not support the other evidence available on record. At the time of incident, it was a dark night and rainy and there was no visibility, even from a short 9 distance due to its darkness. The deceased was having various criminal offences registered against him having enmity with other persons, who have committed his murder and the present appellant G. Ramesh is only a passerby and on suspicion, his name has also been implicated as the accused in the case. Although the blood has been found on the clothes of the appellant, but there is no blood group or DNA report that the blood found on the clothes of the appellant is the same blood of the deceased. The PW-4/Ramesh is an interested witness, who closely related with the family of the deceased and therefore his evidence is not reliable, therefore, in view of the lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant G. Ramesh, he cannot be convicted in the offence and is entitled for acquittal. 10. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant A. Janpal @ DK (CRA No. 306 of 2024) would submit that, the prosecution could not establish the motive to commit murder of the deceased against the present appellant. There is no overt act of assault made by the present appellant on the body of the deceased. There is discrepancy in the presence of the appellant and involvement in the commission of murder of the deceased along with the co-accused. The material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses have been ignored by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the appellant is entitled to benefit of those omissions and contradictions. There is no corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased as stated by the so-called eyewitnesses. He would also submit that the FSL report 10 itself is not sufficient to hold guilty in the capital offence and there is no sufficient evidence against the present appellant to convict him for the offence of murder of the deceased D. Manish and he is he is also entitled for acquittal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective appellants and has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses. The eyewitness PW-2/B. Ashish and PW-4/Ramesh have duly supported the prosecution's case and their evidence have further been corroborated by the memorandum and seizure of the weapon of offence and clothes of the appellants and FSL report, which connects the appellants with the offence in question as human blood was also found in their clothes. The evidence of eyewitnesses are not suffer with any infirmity and their evidence are fully reliable, but for minor omissions or contradictions nothing could be extracted from their evidence, so that their evidence can be disbelieved. The manner in which the appellants have assaulted the deceased and the number of injuries found on his body inflicted by a knife clearly demonstrate the predetermination of the appellants that they intended to cause murder of the deceased, came there armed with knife. The appellant A. Janpal @ DK caught hold the deceased from back side and then the appellant G. Ramesh gave multiple knife blow on the body of the deceased. The injuries found on the body of the deceased have also been proved by the doctor, who conducted his post-mortem, therefore, there are overwhelming evidence available in the record to hold guilty of the appellants for murder of the 11 deceased and their appeals do not have any merits and are liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-6/Dr. S. Dheeraj, who initially treated the deceased at Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai, and PW-10/Dr. A.K. Jaiswani, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased. 14. PW-6/Dr. S. Dheeraj has stated in his evidence that on 02.09.2020, at about 7:45 PM, the injured D. Manish was taken to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. He examined him and found various sharp cut injuries on his chest. After giving him the primary treatment, he was referred for surgery, and since there was no Cardio-thoracic Vascular Surgeon available in the hospital, he was referred to a higher centre for his treatment, and his MLC report is Exhibit P-16. He also gave the MLC intimation to the concerned police, which is Exhibit P-17. Looking to the condition of the injured, he also given his opinion that the injured was not fit to record his statement, which is Exhibit P-18. He also gave a query report/Exhibit P-19. In cross-examination, this witness has remained firm in saying that the victim was brought before him for treatment of his injuries, which were found on his chest, and looking to his condition, he was referred to higher centre for his treatment. 12 15. PW-10/Dr. A.K. Jaiswani, who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 04.09.2020, the dead body of the deceased Manish was brought before him for its post-mortem. He found 08 injuries (contusion and stab injury) on the body of the deceased. Under scalp hematoma was present over left frontal region. Multiple cut fractures present over second and third rib on right side, corresponding to injury No. 3 and 4, and 6th and 7th rib on right side, corresponding to injury No. 6 and 7, with extravasation of blood in surrounding intercostal muscles, and opined that the cause of death is due to multiple stab injuries over thorax, and the manner of death is homicidal. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion given by the defence that if a person has died in accidental death, and at that time, if the stabbing were done on his body, then the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused on the body of the person upon whom the stabbing was done. In his cross- examination, this witness has remained firm in saying that he found numerous injuries on the body of the deceased, including cut of the ribs corresponding to the injuries on his chest. 16. PW-2/B. Ashish, who is the eyewitness to the incident, has also stated that when he along with D. Manish were chatting each other at Sector-6 Bhilai Ispat Club, two persons came there, started altercation with D. Manish, and one of them has started assaulting the deceased by pointed weapon, and thereafter, he along with appellant A. Janpal taken the deceased to Police Station Bhilai Nagar. 13 17. PW-4/Ramesh, who is another eyewitness to the incident, has also stated that the appellants have given the multiple blow on the body of the deceased by knife. A. Janpal caught hold the deceased and G. Ramesh given repeated blow on his body. The witness to the inquest (exhibit P-8) PW-1/D. Vijay has proved the inquest/exhibit P-8. From the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial Court has come into conclusion that the deceased died due to homicidal death, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we are also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 18. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question are concerned, the prosecution has proved its case by producing the eyewitness to the incident. PW-4/Ramesh is the eyewitness to the incident, who stated in his evidence that the deceased D. Manish is his nephew. On 02.09.2020, there was a quarrel took place between D. Manish and A. Janpal, G. Ramesh, Sunny and Bittu near Telugu Mohalla, which was intervened by the persons of the vicinity. The mother of the deceased has informed him about the incident and also informed him that in the evening, A. Janpal @ DK, G. Ramesh, Sunny and Bittu have entered into her house and on the point of knife, they asked them about D. Manish. When they said that he left his house and went outside, then they threatened them that they will not leave him and wherever he would be found, they will kill him. She asked him to take him back as he is in danger. When he was in search of D. Manish, he found him near School No. 2, Sector 6. Four persons including A. Janpal @ DK, G. Ramesh, Sunny and Bittu 14 were assaulting the deceased Manish by hand and fist. He parked his motorcycle and intervened in the quarrel and pulled the appellant A. Janpal. At that time, G. Ramesh took knife and gave multiple blows on D. Manish. He left Janpal and caught hold G. Ramesh and tried to drag him. At that very moment, A. Janpal also took a knife and he also gave repeated blow on D. Manish. At that time, Sunny and Bittu caught hold the hands of D. Manish from back side. The incident was witnessed by Pintu also. In that scuffling, his mobile was also fell there. In a short while, the persons of the vicinity also came and he took the deceased D. Manish to Sector 6 Police Station, from where he immediately sent to Sector 9 Hospital. The doctor had referred him to Raipur Hospital and then the deceased was being taken to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. But on the next day, i.e. on 03.09.2020, he died. Since he has taken the deceased to Raipur for his treatment, the report has been lodged by the relative of the appellants B. Ashish. His statement was also recorded before the Magistrate, which is Exhibit P-P15. In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased Manish is his nephew. He did not know the reason of incident, which has been occurred at Telugu Mohalla. He did not remember as to whether while taking the deceased to the hospital, the blood was found on his clothes also or not. He denied the suggestion that he has not taken the deceased to the hospital or police station. He admitted that at the time of incident, he saw two knives there, but knives had not been seized before him. The place of incident is not the Chauraha, but it was ahead of the said Chauraha i.e. near water tank. He also 15 clarified the location of the place of incident in his cross-examination. He firmly stated in his cross-examination that he himself witnessed the incident and therefore there is no question of naming the appellants by the deceased. He also stated in his evidence that in his police statement (exhibit D-2), he disclosed that the appellant has assaulted the deceased Manish bu knife, but if the word “Bhakabhak” is not there in his police statement (exhibit D-2), he could not tell the reason. He has not instructed the witness Ashish to lodge the report and when he came back from Raipur, then he came to know that Ashish has lodged report. He subsequently found his mobile phone from the police station, which was taken by the police from the spot. In further cross examination, he stated that he did not know any person named D. Ramesh. He did not know, how the name D. Ramesh is come in the FIR along with B. Ashish, he voluntarily stated that his name is Ramesh. He admitted that there is no introduction between him and B. Ashish. Even after the incident he had not any conversation with B. Ashish and never met him after that. The persons of the vicinity have informed him that FIR has already been lodged. He further stated that he did not disclose in his police statement about reasons of quarrel. At the time of incident there was no heavy rain, but it was drizzling. From the lengthy cross examination of this witness, the defence could not be able to extract any material, which makes this witness doubtful or his evidence can be disbelieved on that count. He is the eye witness to the incident and remained firm in saying, that on the date of incident the present appellants have caused numerous 16 injuries by knife on the body of the deceased, by which he died. He being the relative of the deceased, his presence on the spot is also natural as he was in search of the deceased, on the request made by his mother that the deceased was being threatened by the appellants that they will kill him and ultimately they did the same. There is no material inconsistency in his evidence with that of his 164 CRPC statement. We found no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 19. PW-2/B. Ashish is another eye witness, though he stated in his evidence that at the time of incident he along with D. Manish were chatting near Sector 6 Ispat Club, Bhilai, at that time two boys came there, raised quarrel with D. Manish and when he intervened in their quarrel, one of them has assaulted him by a sharp-edged pointed weapon and he saw the assault made upon the deceased and thereafter they fled away. Thereafter this witness has turned hostile on the identification of the appellants as the assailants. He stated in his examination in chief that, he along with the appellant Janpal has taken the deceased to police station Bhilai Nagar. Thereafter he had gone to the house of the deceased to inform them, but till that time his family members were already came to know about the incident and they already proceeded to the police station. The Bhilai Nagar police station have registered the FIR/exhibit P-10, in which his signature is there and in the spot map/exhibit P-11 also his signature is there. Thereafter this witness has declared hostile and not supported the prosecution's case regarding the identification of the appellants, registration of the 17 FIR/exhibit P-10 and spot map/exhibit P-11. He admitted that he and the appellants belongs to the same community. In cross examination, he admitted that at the time of incident he along with D. Manish and two other persons was there with whom the quarrel ensued with respect to the issue of sister of Manish. 20. PW-3/Pintu Thakur is also another eye witness, but he too has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. 21. PW-5 is the witness of memorandum and seizure from the appellants, but he turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. 22. PW-7/Radhelal Yadav is the constable, who has taken the viscera of the deceased from Moudhapara police station, Raipur to Bhilai Nagar police station and seizure memo is exhibit P-20. 23. PW-8/B.R. Markam is the Sub-Inspector of Police at Bhilai Nagar police station. He registered the FIR/exhibit P-10 on the instance of informant B. Ashish on 02.09.2020. He stated in his evidence that, the person who came for lodging of the report had come after admitting the victim in the Sector-9 hospital. He stated in his evidence that, after registration of the FIR he has not visited to the place of incident and has also not given any intimation to the Judicial Magistrate about the cognizable offence. 24. PW-10/D.K. Sahu is the Revenue Inspector at Municipal Corporation Bhilai has prepared the spot map/exhibit P-9 and duly proved the same. 18 25. PW-11/Trinath Tripathi is the Inspector of Police, who has proved the memorandum statement of the appellants/exhibit P-1 and P-2, which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector Daya Shankar Pandey. He proved the investigation carried out by the Sub-Inspector Daya Shankar Pandey, as he duly acquainted with the handwriting and signature of him. He stated that presently the Sub-Inspector Daya Shankar Pandey has died and since he was his subordinate, therefore, he is well acquainted with his handwriting and signature. He duly proved the investigation carried out by him and proved the document, which he drawn during the investigation. From the evidence of all these witnesses, PW-4 is the witness, who saw the incident and duly proved the same that these two appellants have caused numerous injuries on the body of the deceased, by which he died. His evidence has inspired confidence in the Court and nothing in his evidence, which makes it doubtful or can be disbelieved on that ground. But for minor omission or contradictions, which are trivial in nature, can be ignored by taking the material part of his evidence. Though he is the relative of the deceased, but only for the reason that he being the relative of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded, rather he being the best witness, as he may not have involved any innocent person, if he was having knowledge of the actual culprit. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2017) 11 SCC 129 in Para 30 and 31 has held as under: “31. In this regard reference to a passage from Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 19 (1981) 3 SCC 675 would be fruitful. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench has ruled that: “It cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. It is worthy to note that there is a distinction between a witness who is related and an interested witness. A relative is a natural witness. The Court in Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 has opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason. 32. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also impressed upon us to discard the testimony of PW-3, Tedda, on the ground that he is a chance witness. According to him, his presence at the spot is doubtful and his evidence is not beyond suspicion. Commenting on the argument of chance witness, a two-Judge Bench in Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 was compelled to observe:- “3……..We do not understand the expression “chance witnesses”. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural 20 witnesses. If murder is committed on a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere “chance witnesses”. The expression “chance witnesses” is borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are “chance witnesses”, even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence.” 27. For proving the offence against the accused, it is not the number of witnesses are required, but the quality of witness is required. If the witness is found to be sterling quality, the conviction can be made on the solitary witness, if he duly proved the offence. 28. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 47 and 48 as under: “47. It is well known principal of law that reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. The courts are concerned with the merit and the statement of a particular witness and not at all concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The time-honoured rule of appreciating evidence is that it has to be weighed and not counted. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, where, the court finds that the testimony of solitary witness is neither wholly 21 reliable nor wholly unreliable, it may, in given set of facts, seek corroboration but to disbelieve reliable testimony of a solitary witness on the ground that others have not been examined is to do complete injustice to the prosecution. 48. This Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, finds that the testimony of witness Madan Lal is cogent, consistent and reliable. Taking into consideration the manner in which witness Madan Lal had testified before the Court and the fact that nothing could be elicited in his lengthy cross-examination for days together to impeach his credibility, this Court is of the view that his testimony is reliable and can be accepted without any reservations. Therefore, non-examination of his brother or sister or few others who had gathered near the house of deceased Guljari Lal after the incident is of no significance and does not affect credibility of testimony of the said witness.” 29. From the nature of evidence available on record i.e. the evidence of PW-4/ Ramesh and the evidence of PW-6/Dr. S. Dheeraj and PW-10/ Dr. A. K. Jaiswani, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants have caused injuries to the deceased, by which he died and his death is homicidal in nature. The number of injuries found on the body of the deceased and its nature clearly reflects that the appellants were intended to cause death of the deceased and they armed with knife came near the School No. 2, Sector-6, Bhilai and given repeated blow on the body of the deceased, by which he received serious injuries and ultimately died, and thus the guilt of the appellants has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and we found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgement passed by learned trial Court. 22 30. 31. Therefore, both these appeals filed by the respective appellants are devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. The appellants shall undergo the entire sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 33. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved