SHRI VILAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are heard and decided by a common judgment since the appeals challenge the same judgment and order of conviction dated 27.04.2015 in Sessions Case 19/2006 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by and under which, the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/each.

(2.) Heard Shri A.M. Kukday, the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 32/2016, Shri M.L. Vairagade, the learned counsel in Criminal Appeal 299/2015 and Ms. F.N. Haidari, the learned counsel for appellants in Criminal Appeal 300/2015. Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent/State in all the three appeals.

(3.) The learned counsels appearing for the appellants (herein after referred to as "accused") are in unison in subjecting the judgment and order impugned to scathing criticism that the learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error in basing the conviction on the sole uncorroborated testimony of the son of Manohar (P.W.1), whom the learned counsel would brand as a highly interested witness. The learned counsels would further urge that even if the testimony is accepted at face value, the prosecution has not proved an offence under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and at the most the accused could have been convicted for offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C. The learned counsels would hasten to submit, that this is a submission arguendo, and without prejudice to the contention that the testimony of P.W.1 is neither confidence inspiring nor is implicitly reliable and credit worthy. Per contra, Shri Jawade, the learned A.P.P. contends that there is neither a rule of evidence nor precedent to hold that the sole testimony of a related witness must receive corroboration by other direct or circumstantial evidence. He would contend that the difference between a related witness and an interested witness is articulated by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another, (1981) SCC 2 SCC 752, and that in any event the testimony of P.W.1 is sufficiently corroborated by the spot panchnama and the medical evidence.