MANPHOOL ALIAS PHOOLIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal has been filed by accused appellant Manphool @ Phoolia against the judgment dated 10. 8. 2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Baran whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted for the offence under Section 379 IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- fine, in default to further suffer imprisonment of three month's RI for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) THE relevant facts which are essential for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions of the both the sides and examined the entire evidence available on record. WE are in full agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae that the trial Court has convicted the accused appellant on the basis of statement of sole eye witness Murtibai. WE are of the view that if the conviction is based only on the statement of sole eye witness then evidence of such sole eye witness should be scrutinized with caution and circumspection. If on such scrutiny the evidence is acceptable accused can be convicted on the basis statement of such sole eye witness. WE are also of the view that when the prosecution case rests mainly on sole testimony of an eye witness then it should be wholly reliable. The case in hand is based on sole statement of eye witness Murtibai. WE should examine her statement with caution and circumspection. When we examine her statement with caution we find that her name does not find place in first information report which was lodged to police after two days of the occurrence. After reading the statement of PW. 3 Tejmal father of the deceased and lodger of the report, it becomes clear that even on the day of occurrence he was told by his wife that deceased Sita went with Murtibai if this was true then positively Tejmal must have mentioned this fact in his first information report. When this question was asked in cross examination he stated that he has not mentioned this fact in the FIR that his daughter went with Murtibai. If deceased Sitabai would have gone with Murtibai and this fact came in the knowledge of Tejmal before lodging the FIR, certainly this fact should have been there in FIR. When we examine first information report in detail, Tejmal has not mentioned that deceased went with Murtibai, it creates doubt in our mind about presence of Murtibai at the time of occurrence.