SALIM ALIAS CHHAMMU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three appellants Salim @ Chammu, Tejmal and Ram Prasad were arraigned before the sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No. 178/94 for having committed murder of Mohan Lal. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer one week rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the prosecution case is that Smt. Sumitra, informant (PW. 8), is the legally wedded wife of Mohan Lal (deceased ). On the day of alleged occurrence she was working as ANM at Jaykaylon Hospital, Kota. The appellant Tejmal had taken the contract of cycle stand in the aforesaid Hospital. In the night of March 5,1994 when Smt. Sumitra was on duty in her ward Ram Prasad walked in the ward to enquire into as to who was on duty. Answering to the enquiry Smt. Sumitra discerned that she was on duty. She also stated that she was the wife of Mohanlalji. At that time Ram Prasad left only to return around 10 p. m. on the same night with 3-4 persons and exhorted threats to Smt. Sumitra. Then on March 7, 1994 in the evening around 8 p. m. when Mohar Lal had gone to drop Smt. Sumitra to the Hospital for night duty he was surrounded by 8-10 persons who were armed with Sword, Iron Rod, Hockey and Sticks and was belaboured by them. The impugned assault took place near the counter in the Hall of Jaykaylon Hospital. Mohan Lal was seriously injured and was profusely bleeding. He was immediately removed to MBS Hospital by Smt. Sumitra. He passed away in the Hospital immediately after administration of First-aid. The police also reached in MBS Hospital in a short while. Smt. Sumitra handed over written report (Ex. P. 8) of the alleged incident to the police in the MBS Hospital, On the basis of which formal FIR Ex. P. 8. A was drawn.

(3.) BEFORE we analyse the prosecution evidence it will be useful to consider as to whether the evidence of a single witness alone is sufficient to convict the accused. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. This general rule enshrines the well recognised maxim that "evidence has to be weighed and not counted. " The Apex Court in V. Thevar vs. State of Madras (1) indicated that it is a sound and well established rule of law that the Court' is concerned with the guilty and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories namely (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was indicated by their Lordships of the Apex Court that in the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. it is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.