MULIA KIRSANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced thereunder to undergo imprisonment for life by the judgment and order passed by the Court of Session after accepting the case of the prosecution that after a quarrel between the appellant on the one hand and the deceased on the other in the evening of May 18, 1978 the appellant, being armed with bow and arrows came at about midnight to the outer court yard of the house of the deceased where the deceased and P.W.2 (his widow) were sleeping and shot an arrow (M.O.II) which missed the deceased and shot another arrow (M.O.I) which hit and pierced into the abdomen resulting in his death. Of the witnesses examined for the prosecution. P.W.1 was the sole witness to the occurrence and P.W.2 is the widow of the deceased. While Mr. Routray, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 was not true and trustworthy, it has been contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the order of conviction is well -founded.

(2.) IT admits of no doubt from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8), who had conducted the autopsy that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and this finding of the learned Sessions Judge has not been assailed. The evidence of P.W.2 was that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in the evening and the appellant had admitted this in his statement. The evidence of P.W.1 was that while he was awake at about midnight he saw from his courtyard that the appellant came and shot two arrows one of which missed the deceased and the other hit him. P.W.1. a front -door neighbour of the deceased who was only 15 cubits away from the place of occurrence and within a visible distance in a moon lit night was a natural and competent witness. Besides, nothing had been shown as to why he would support the case of the prosecution and falsely rope in the appellant. He was thus an independent and disinterested witness. The evidence of P.W.1 did find support in that of P.W.2. the widow of the deceased, who had pulled out M.O.I which had pierced into the abdomen of her deceased husband and she had shown M.Os.I and II to P.W.3 and others. These articles had been seized in the course of investigation and on chemical examination, blood had been detected in M.O.I although its origin could not be determined. The evidence of P.W.1 had found support in the medical evidence as rightly noticed by the learned Sessions Judge. P.W.1 had not intervened when the occurrence had taken place nor was there any evidence that he had raised a cry. But different persons may react differently when they see a murderous assault and the clear and acceptable evidence of an eye -witness is not to be discarded merely because he had not intervened at the time of the occurrence. (See AIR 1981 SC 1227 : 1981 Cri LJ 733 Angad v. State of Maharashtra and AIR 1983 SC 680 : (1983 Cri LJ 1272) Rana Partap v. State of Haryana).

(3.) AN order of conviction can be based on the evidence of a solitary witness if the evidence is found to be true and trustworthy and above reproach. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 besides being of that character had found support in other evidence.