BRIJBASILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1977 on the file of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the correctness of the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him imprisonment for life.

(2.) The appellant took his trial on a charge that on 7/08/1976 at about 7 p. m. he committed the murder of deceased, Vishwanath, who is the father of Public Witness 1 in the. village Kaprora by. firing gun shots. Though number of witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution case, most of the witnesses have turned hostile except Public Witness 1 who is none other than the son of the deceased, Vishwanath.

(3.) According to Public Witness 1, he and his father while coming together from the bazar, the appellant herein fired four gunshots as a result of which the deceased died. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that both the courts below ought not to have accepted the sole testimony of Public Witness 1 whose evidence is highlyinterested as Public Witness 1 happens to be the son of the deceased. We went through the copy of the deposition furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the impugned judgment meticulously. As pointed out by this court in Chinniah Servai v. State of Madras that plurality of witnesses is not necessary to prove a criminal charge and that a conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of a witness provided the testimony of that witness is wholly acceptable. Applying the above test, we, at the same time, bearing in mind the relationship of Public Witness 1 with the deceased, examined the evidence carefully and are satisfied that the evidence of Public Witness 1 is reliable and free from any infirmity. Therefore, we have no reason to refuse to act upon the testimony of Public Witness 1 merely on the ground that he is the son of the deceased. Since the evidence of Public Witness 1 is otherwise reliable and acceptable, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the High court.