In the case of Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand reported in

learned trial court in oral evidence and has proved written report as Ext. Ka1. Panchayatnama as Ext. Ka2. F.I.R. as Ext. Ka3. G.D. entry as Ext. Ka4. Recovery memo of murder weapon as Ext. Ka10. Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain soil as Ext. Ka11. Recovery memo of blood stained pieces of carpet as Ext. Ka12. Site plan with index as Ext. Ka13. Site plan with 2 of 9 index as Ext. Ka14. Postmortem report as Ext. Ka15. Charge sheet as Ext. Ka16 in documentary evidence.

7. Learned trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, passed the judgement and sentence impugned whereby the appellant accused has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed and in default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo six months imprisonment in lieu of fine.

8. This Court is tasked with re-appreciation of the evidence on record and come to the conclusion and to find whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant accused beyond the reasonable doubt or whether learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective?

9. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the occurrence took place in the darkness of the night so there was no source of light, therefore, it is doubtful that PW-1 and PW-2 could have seen the occurrence and identified the accused. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-2 are not natural witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that PW-2 has stated that the accused left the place of occurrence unarmed leaving the weapon axe and sickle. It is highly doubtful that a person after committing the crime would leave the place of occurrence unarmed. Learned amicus curiae further submits that PW-2 has stated that the accused and deceased had taken liquor along with him does not find support from the postmortem of the deceased as there was no smell of liquor found in the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the weapon has been shown from bushes after one month and the 3 of 9 recovery of the weapon is shrouded in suspicion. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that PW-5, witness of recovery of weapon of offence has turned hostile and has not supported the factum of recovery at the instance of the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has committed manifest error in appreciating the evidence on record and recording the finding of conviction and sentence against the appellant-accused. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted of the charge.

10. Per contra learned A.G.A. has supported the judgement and sentence passed by learned trial court and has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. Learned A.G.A. further submits that PW-1 is wholly reliable and even PW-2 is partly reliable thought to some extent PW-2 is not reliable but it is also worth mentioning that PW-2 is the brother of the accused who has tried to save him.

11.- Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the evidence of PW- 1 is fully corroborated by PW-9, who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Brijesh and found the following injuries:- "(i)- Incised wound 7cm * 3cm front of neck, 7cm below. Chin, Traehea divided transversely. One skin tage present transversely. (ii)- 2cm * 1cm L.W. on lt. cheek anteroposteriorly 4cm below bone deep. 11cm * 8cm surroundingly red contusion with abrasion present. (iii)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. on forehead 1/2 cm rt. from centre front. (iv)- 2cm * 1cm on rt. eye-brow lateral part bone deep. (v)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. below lt. eye (1/2 cm below)"

12. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that recovery of the weapon of offence has also been proved by PW-6 and PW-10 who have supported the factum of recovery of the weapon of 4 of 9 offence at the instance of the accused. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt before the learned trial court and learned trial court was right in passing the impugned judgement and order. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

13. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 267 Hon'ble Supreme Court as held that conviction of an accused can be based on the sole testimony of the witness if the evidence of the witness is wholly reliable. Relevant paragraph is quoted:- "The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. {See - Vadivelu Thevan etc. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614}."

14. It is well settled that the testimony of the interested witnesses cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the witnesses are interested but law requires that the testimony of the interested witness has to be scrutinized with caution. In the case of Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "what matters in the matter of appreciation of witnesses is not the numbers of witnesses but the quality of their evidence." Relevant paragraph is quoted hereinunder:- 5 of 9 "This Court in Kamaksha Rai and others v. State of U.P. [(1999) 8 SCC 701] dealt with the incident where large number of people exceeding 500 in number were alleged to have taken part in attacking backward class persons by upper class, and observed that considering the nature of the attack and the possibility or otherwise of the identification of these accused persons by the prosecution witnesses and bearing in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1964) 8 SCR 133], which was followed in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1997) 1SCC 283], it is not safe to rely on the evidence of witnesses who speak generally and in an omnibus way without specific reference to the identity of the individuals and their specific overt acts in regard to the incident that took place in the Harijan basti. The Court also observed that as a rule of prudence it is necessary to fix a minimum number of witnesses needed to accept the prosecution case to base a conviction. The decision in Masalti's case (Supra) enunciating rule of caution is well established law uniformly followed all throughout. [Re: Baddi Venkata Narasayya and others v. State of A.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 329], State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and others [(1998) 6 SCC 554] and Hukam Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 7 SCC 490]."

15. Similar view has also been taken in the case of Ambika Prasad and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration, Delhi) reported in AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 718. Relevant paragraph is quoted hereinunder:- "In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. Dealing with similar contention in State of UP v. Anil Singh (Supra) this Court observed:- In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of independent corroboration by witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable." 6 of 9

16. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act also provides that no particular number of witness is required to prove a particular fact.

17. The F.I.R. is prompt naming the accused as perpetrator of the crime. The motive as alleged is that the accused suspected the deceased of having developed illicit relationship with his wife but the same has been denied by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

18. It is well settled law that in a case resting on eye-witness account, the motive is of no significance or of little significance. PW-1 informant has categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that on hearing the screams of weeping and crying, he rushed towards the terrace and saw the accused assaulting the deceased by axe and sickle. This witness tried to save his brother but the accused attacked him and fled away from the place of occurrence giving threats to this witness. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that on hearing the screams he himself got up and rushed towards the terrace and when he reached the terrace he saw his brother screaming and crying and the accused Virendra Singh was having axe in his right hand and he was assaulting is brother by axe and he was having sickle in his left hand. The accused was assaulting the deceased by axe on his neck. This witness saw the incident in the light coming from the pole (street light pole). The defence has not successfully contradicted this witness or material particulars and this witness is wholly reliable.

19. PW-2 Bal Krishna @ Babloo who is relative of the accused has stated in his examination-in-chief that he along with PW-1, on hearing the scream and crying, they rushed towards the terrace and saw axe and sickle in the hands of accused and the 7 of 9 accused was assaulting the deceased. In cross-examination though there are some contradictions regarding taking of liquor by the accused, deceased and this witness and he has also been contradicted that while he went to the terrace he found the deceased Brijesh lying dead and he did not see any one assaulting the deceased Brijesh. This witness is partly reliable and partly unreliable.

20. PW-9 Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased has found the following injuries:- "(i)- Incised wound 7cm * 3cm front of neck, 7cm below. Chin, Traehea divided transversely. One skin tage present transversely. (ii)- 2cm * 1cm L.W. on lt. cheek anteroposteriorly 4cm below bone deep. 11cm * 8cm surroundingly red contusion with abrasion present. (iii)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. on forehead 1/2 cm rt. from centre front. (iv)- 2cm * 1cm on rt. eye-brow lateral part bone deep. (v)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. below lt. eye (1/2 cm below)"

21. In the opinion of this witness the cause of death was injuries caused by weapon on the neck of the deceased. Other witness PW-3 is a formal witness. PW-5 who is witness of recovery of alleged weapon of offence has turned hostile but PW-6 and PW- 10 have supported the factum of recovery of alleged weapon at the instance of the accused.

22. It is well settled law that for recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is desirable that independent witnesses must be produced to prove the factum of recovery but since the independent witness has not been produced and even the disclosure statement of accused has not been recorded and the said recovery has been effected after one month, the prosecution has not been able to prove the said recovery by cogent evidence. PW-4 is a formal witness. PW-6 and PW-10 are the Investigating Officers. PW-8 is witness of inquest. PW-7 8 of 9 is witness who has proved that the I.O. had taken plain soil and blood stained soil in his presence from the terrace by using hammer.

23. From the appreciation of evidence since PW-6 is wholly reliable and PW-2 is partly reliable and partly unreliable and testimony of PW-1 has been fully corroborated by medical evidence and the F.I.R. is prompt, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the charge against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

24. In view of above, learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and has passed a well reasoned judgement and sentence which does not call for any interference by us.

25. Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

26. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance forthwith.

27. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is also directed to send his compliance report within one month to Court from the date of receipt of this order.

28. Learned amicus curiae shall be paid as per relevant norms. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9

learned trial court in oral evidence and has proved written report as Ext. Ka1. Panchayatnama as Ext. Ka2. F.I.R. as Ext. Ka3. G.D. entry as Ext. Ka4. Recovery memo of murder weapon as Ext. Ka10. Recovery memo of blood stained soil and plain soil as Ext. Ka11. Recovery memo of blood stained pieces of carpet as Ext. Ka12. Site plan with index as Ext. Ka13. Site plan with 2 of 9 index as Ext. Ka14. Postmortem report as Ext. Ka15. Charge sheet as Ext. Ka16 in documentary evidence.

7. Learned trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, passed the judgement and sentence impugned whereby the appellant accused has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed and in default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo six months imprisonment in lieu of fine.

8. This Court is tasked with re-appreciation of the evidence on record and come to the conclusion and to find whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant accused beyond the reasonable doubt or whether learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective?

9. Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the occurrence took place in the darkness of the night so there was no source of light, therefore, it is doubtful that PW-1 and PW-2 could have seen the occurrence and identified the accused. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-2 are not natural witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that PW-2 has stated that the accused left the place of occurrence unarmed leaving the weapon axe and sickle. It is highly doubtful that a person after committing the crime would leave the place of occurrence unarmed. Learned amicus curiae further submits that PW-2 has stated that the accused and deceased had taken liquor along with him does not find support from the postmortem of the deceased as there was no smell of liquor found in the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of the weapon has been shown from bushes after one month and the 3 of 9 recovery of the weapon is shrouded in suspicion. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that PW-5, witness of recovery of weapon of offence has turned hostile and has not supported the factum of recovery at the instance of the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has committed manifest error in appreciating the evidence on record and recording the finding of conviction and sentence against the appellant-accused. Learned amicus curiae further submitted that the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted of the charge.

10. Per contra learned A.G.A. has supported the judgement and sentence passed by learned trial court and has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. Learned A.G.A. further submits that PW-1 is wholly reliable and even PW-2 is partly reliable thought to some extent PW-2 is not reliable but it is also worth mentioning that PW-2 is the brother of the accused who has tried to save him.

11.- Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the evidence of PW- 1 is fully corroborated by PW-9, who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Brijesh and found the following injuries:- "(i)- Incised wound 7cm * 3cm front of neck, 7cm below. Chin, Traehea divided transversely. One skin tage present transversely. (ii)- 2cm * 1cm L.W. on lt. cheek anteroposteriorly 4cm below bone deep. 11cm * 8cm surroundingly red contusion with abrasion present. (iii)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. on forehead 1/2 cm rt. from centre front. (iv)- 2cm * 1cm on rt. eye-brow lateral part bone deep. (v)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. below lt. eye (1/2 cm below)"

12. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that recovery of the weapon of offence has also been proved by PW-6 and PW-10 who have supported the factum of recovery of the weapon of 4 of 9 offence at the instance of the accused. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt before the learned trial court and learned trial court was right in passing the impugned judgement and order. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the appeal has got no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

13. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 267 Hon'ble Supreme Court as held that conviction of an accused can be based on the sole testimony of the witness if the evidence of the witness is wholly reliable. Relevant paragraph is quoted:- "The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. {See - Vadivelu Thevan etc. v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614}."

14. It is well settled that the testimony of the interested witnesses cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the witnesses are interested but law requires that the testimony of the interested witness has to be scrutinized with caution. In the case of Krishna Mochi and others Vs. State of Bihar it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "what matters in the matter of appreciation of witnesses is not the numbers of witnesses but the quality of their evidence." Relevant paragraph is quoted hereinunder:- 5 of 9 "This Court in Kamaksha Rai and others v. State of U.P. [(1999) 8 SCC 701] dealt with the incident where large number of people exceeding 500 in number were alleged to have taken part in attacking backward class persons by upper class, and observed that considering the nature of the attack and the possibility or otherwise of the identification of these accused persons by the prosecution witnesses and bearing in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1964) 8 SCR 133], which was followed in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1997) 1SCC 283], it is not safe to rely on the evidence of witnesses who speak generally and in an omnibus way without specific reference to the identity of the individuals and their specific overt acts in regard to the incident that took place in the Harijan basti. The Court also observed that as a rule of prudence it is necessary to fix a minimum number of witnesses needed to accept the prosecution case to base a conviction. The decision in Masalti's case (Supra) enunciating rule of caution is well established law uniformly followed all throughout. [Re: Baddi Venkata Narasayya and others v. State of A.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 329], State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and others [(1998) 6 SCC 554] and Hukam Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 7 SCC 490]."

15. Similar view has also been taken in the case of Ambika Prasad and another Vs. State (Delhi Administration, Delhi) reported in AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 718. Relevant paragraph is quoted hereinunder:- "In any case, if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot be blamed and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of injured witnesses. Dealing with similar contention in State of UP v. Anil Singh (Supra) this Court observed:- In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of independent corroboration by witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable." 6 of 9

16. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act also provides that no particular number of witness is required to prove a particular fact.

17. The F.I.R. is prompt naming the accused as perpetrator of the crime. The motive as alleged is that the accused suspected the deceased of having developed illicit relationship with his wife but the same has been denied by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

18. It is well settled law that in a case resting on eye-witness account, the motive is of no significance or of little significance. PW-1 informant has categorically stated in his examination-in- chief that on hearing the screams of weeping and crying, he rushed towards the terrace and saw the accused assaulting the deceased by axe and sickle. This witness tried to save his brother but the accused attacked him and fled away from the place of occurrence giving threats to this witness. In cross- examination, this witness has stated that on hearing the screams he himself got up and rushed towards the terrace and when he reached the terrace he saw his brother screaming and crying and the accused Virendra Singh was having axe in his right hand and he was assaulting is brother by axe and he was having sickle in his left hand. The accused was assaulting the deceased by axe on his neck. This witness saw the incident in the light coming from the pole (street light pole). The defence has not successfully contradicted this witness or material particulars and this witness is wholly reliable.

19. PW-2 Bal Krishna @ Babloo who is relative of the accused has stated in his examination-in-chief that he along with PW-1, on hearing the scream and crying, they rushed towards the terrace and saw axe and sickle in the hands of accused and the 7 of 9 accused was assaulting the deceased. In cross-examination though there are some contradictions regarding taking of liquor by the accused, deceased and this witness and he has also been contradicted that while he went to the terrace he found the deceased Brijesh lying dead and he did not see any one assaulting the deceased Brijesh. This witness is partly reliable and partly unreliable.

20. PW-9 Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased has found the following injuries:- "(i)- Incised wound 7cm * 3cm front of neck, 7cm below. Chin, Traehea divided transversely. One skin tage present transversely. (ii)- 2cm * 1cm L.W. on lt. cheek anteroposteriorly 4cm below bone deep. 11cm * 8cm surroundingly red contusion with abrasion present. (iii)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. on forehead 1/2 cm rt. from centre front. (iv)- 2cm * 1cm on rt. eye-brow lateral part bone deep. (v)- 1cm * 1cm L.W. below lt. eye (1/2 cm below)"

21. In the opinion of this witness the cause of death was injuries caused by weapon on the neck of the deceased. Other witness PW-3 is a formal witness. PW-5 who is witness of recovery of alleged weapon of offence has turned hostile but PW-6 and PW- 10 have supported the factum of recovery of alleged weapon at the instance of the accused.

22. It is well settled law that for recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is desirable that independent witnesses must be produced to prove the factum of recovery but since the independent witness has not been produced and even the disclosure statement of accused has not been recorded and the said recovery has been effected after one month, the prosecution has not been able to prove the said recovery by cogent evidence. PW-4 is a formal witness. PW-6 and PW-10 are the Investigating Officers. PW-8 is witness of inquest. PW-7 8 of 9 is witness who has proved that the I.O. had taken plain soil and blood stained soil in his presence from the terrace by using hammer.

23. From the appreciation of evidence since PW-6 is wholly reliable and PW-2 is partly reliable and partly unreliable and testimony of PW-1 has been fully corroborated by medical evidence and the F.I.R. is prompt, the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the charge against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

24. In view of above, learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective and has passed a well reasoned judgement and sentence which does not call for any interference by us.

25. Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

26. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance forthwith.

27. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is also directed to send his compliance report within one month to Court from the date of receipt of this order.

28. Learned amicus curiae shall be paid as per relevant norms. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 9 of 9