SANJAY LOHAR Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, East & North at Gangtok, convicting the appellant. Sanjay Lohar under Section 302 IPC for causing the murder of Hemraj Darnal at Chumba busty. Martam under Singtam Police Station on 3-9-1999 at about 2200 hours and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10.000/- (ten thousand) or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months with a further direction that, if fine is realized the same be paid to the kin of the deceased.

(2.) Both the deceased and the accused persons were neighbours residing in adjacent houses at Chumba busty and were also related to each other. On 3-9-1999, after the days work they came back home in an intoxicated condition having taken liquor. The appellant Sanjay Lohar first entered his house and kicked some utensils in the house and later went outside towards the house of the deceased. Hemraj Darnal and knocked at his door. Hemraj Darnal was also outside the door of the house at the time of the occurrence. The deceased Hemraj Darnal and the appellant Sanjay Lohar got into some argument which turned into a scuffle in the verandah and during the scuffle the appellant Sanjay Lohar managed to get hold of an iron metal roll lying in the verandah of HemrajTs house and thereby assaulted Hemraj on the temporal area causing his death on the spot. According to the prosecution only one eye witness namely. Renuka Bhutia who is the sister of the deceased witnessed the occurrence. She has deposed that after she and her husband had retired to bed the appellant came to their house and asked her to open the door giving several kicks on the door and when she opened the door the appellant fell down. Thereupon, her husband passing Bhutia went to call her parents who were living elsewhere near the house and at that time the deceased Hemraj Darnal was also outside the door. According to her evidence both the appellant and the deceased were fighting and during the fight the appellant assaulted the deceased with an iron roll on the head as a result of which he fell down on the ground and when she went to sprinkle water from an aluminum pitcher, the accused snatched the same and threw it on the deceased. The appellant also threw a wooden seat and a grinding stone on the deceased. Thereafter, she left to call her parents but by the time she returned, she found that the appellant had already left. She has admitted in her cross examination that the appellant was friendly with the deceased. She also admitted that at the time, of the occurrence, the deceased was also a little tipsy, Rajendra Kami. PW-3 who is the elder brother of the appellant has deposed that at about 11 p.m. on 3-10-1989 he was awakened by the sound of some noise near his house and on enquiry he learned that the deceased had been assaulted to death by the appellant. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.D. Sharma. (P.W. 4), who at the relevant time was Medico Legal Consultant at the STNM Hospital. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:

(3.) This case primarily hinges on the testimony of the single eye witness namely, Renuka Bhutia, PW-1. As observed in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam AIR 1993 SC 1462 conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the Courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye-witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution then the Courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony in material particulars before recording conviction. It is only when the Courts find that the single eye-witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded into and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the testimony of Renuka Bhutia should be relied upon.