THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 816 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri K.C. Bhanu, J) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.11.2006 in S.C. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby both the accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: 3. The appellants-Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased-Chakali Sreenivasulu are the residents of Nandyal. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the brother and mother of the deceased respectively. P.w.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. While so, on 24.3.2005, at about 2.00 P.M., P.W.1 and her husband went to the house of P.W.2, for securing some money and after taking the money, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased were returning to the house of P.W.1. At about 4.00 p.m., when they reached near the Kirana shop of P.W.6 in Devanagar, Nandyal, A1 and A2 came in an infuriated emotion shouted and abused the deceased in filthy language for the reason that deceased complained to police that Accused committed thefts and thereafter picked up knives. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to intervene, they pushed them away and thereafter stabbed the deceased with knives on his body indiscriminately. As a consequence, the deceased fell down with bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the accused took out boulders and threw them on the deceased and the deceased died instantaneously. P.Ws. 1,2,5 and 6 are said to have witnessed the said incident. Thereafter, A1 and A2 ran away from the scene of offence. P.W.1 proceeded to police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police-PW.9 registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On receiving a copy of express F.I.R., PW.10, visited the scene of offence and instructed P.W.9 to post a guard at the scene of offence. On 26.3.2005, P.W.10 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7 and one Dasthagiri. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. During the course of inquest, P.W.10 examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He also seized MO-6 blood stained stones from the scene of offence. P.W.10 collected M.O.9 blood stained earth and M.O.10 control earth from the scene of offence. He also seized M.Os. 1 to 3, blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased. He, thereafter, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P10. P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8, post mortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries to vital organs like brain, heart, lungs and liver. On 26.3.2005, P.W.10 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.7 and recorded their confessional statements. Thereafter, P.W.1 examined P.Ws. 5 and 6 and recorded their statements. He also filed a requisition under Ex.P11 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal to forward Mos. 1 to 10 to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, who forwarded the same for analysis under Ex.P13. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is marked as Ex.P14. On completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed charge sheet. 4. The charge levelled against the accused is that on 25.3.2005 at about 4.00 p.m., in front of the house of Ambati Dasu Venkateswarlu,(L.W.5) in Devanagar, Nandyal, the accused did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Pagidala Chakali Sreenivasulu, by stabbing him with knives indiscriminately and by throwing stones one each, on the deceased Sreenivasulu and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 5. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14, besides the case properties, M.Os. 1 to 10. 7. The trial Court, while placing an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. levelled against the accused ? 9. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused contended that except the evidence of P.W.2, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of accused; that the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful in view of the fact that his house is far away from the scene of occurrence; that there is no need for P.W.2 to follow the deceased and P.W.1 at the relevant point of time of incident; that the deceased, P.W.2 and some others were accused in the murder case of one Chinna Narsimhulu, and that the possibility of followers of Chinna Narasimhulu might have killed the deceased cannot be ruled out; that P.W.2 foisted a false case against the accused to wreck vengeance against them; that P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and who was accompanying the deceased at the time of incident did not speak about the presence of the accused and also about the fact that the accused are the assailants of the deceased and that except the interested testimony of P.W.2, there is no other evidence to show about the involvement of accused; and that therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against them. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the presence of P.W.2 has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. and since he is the brother-in-law of the deceased, there is every possibility for him to accompany the deceased at the relevant point of time of incident and that if really, he was not present at the time of incident, his name would not have been mentioned in the F.I.R., as an eye witness and Ex.P1 is given within one hour after the incident, that therefore, the false implication of the accused is ruled out; that there is no animosity or enemity for P.W.2 to foist a false case against the accused in case of this nature; that when the presence of P.W.2 is established, there is a scope for him to witness the incident in question; that it is a murder of broad day light, the question of mistaken or false identity can be ruled out, that the trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found the appellants-accused guilty; and that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 11. P.W.10 is the investigating officer, who held inquest on the dead body of the deceased on the next day of incident, i.e., on 26.3.2005 in the presence of P.W.7 and others under Ex.P6. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The cause of the death as spoken to by P.W.7 and as recited in Ex.P6 remained unchallenged. 12. P.W.8 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem external injuries : 1. A stab injury of size 1” x ½” x 1” depth elliptical shape present ½ above right eye brow, edges of would are clean cut. 2. A stab injury of size 1 ½” x 1/2” x 1” depth present over right angle of mandible. Shape elliptical. Edges of wound are clean cut. 3. A lacerated wound of size 2” x 1/2” x muscle deep over right parietal area of scalp. Edges are irregular. 4. An incised wound of 2” x ½” x bone deep size over left side of forehead 3” above the left eye brow, transversely directed edges are clean cut. 5. A lacerated wound of 2” x1/2 x bone deep size present over left side of parietal area of scalp, edges are irregular. 6. A stab wound of size 1 ½ ” x 1½” x 1½ ” depth present over, root of neck on left side. Spindle shaped edges are clean cut. 7. A stab wound of 2” x 1” x 5” depth present just lateral to the midline on the chest at the level of 3rd rib elliptical shaped. Edges are clean cut. 8. An incised wound of 1” ½” x bone deep over posterior aspect of upper 1/3 of left forearm. 9. A stab wound of 1” x ½” x 4” depth present over back on the right side at the level of 6th rib over posterior auxiliary line obliquely directed. 10. A stab wound of 1½” x ½” x 4” size present 3” below injury No. 9. 11. A stab wound of 1½” x ½ “ x 1½” size present over back on right side 4” below angle of scapula over midscapular line. 12. A stab wound of 1½” x ½” x 5” depth present over back on right side 2” lateral to the midline at the level of T4. Horizantally directed. 13. A stab wound of 2 ½ x 1” x 5” depth present 2” lateral to midline 1” below injury No. 12. 14. A stab wound of 2 ½” x 1” x 5” depth over left side of the back 2” lateral to the midline at the level of T4. 15. A stab wound of 2” x 1” x 3” depth over back of left side 1” above spine of left scapula. 16. A stab wound of 2” x 1” x 5” depth over let side of abdomen in left lumbar region with intestines protruding out. 17. A stab wound of 2” x ½” x 2” depth spindle shaped present just above the symphysis pubis elliptical shaped. 18. A stab wound of 2” x ½” x 2” depth present above left anterior superior iliac spine. Elliptical shaped. 19. A stab wound of 1” x ½ “ x 2” depth present over right side abdomen 4” below level of umbilicus 2” lateral to midline. 13. On internal examination, he found injuries on the head, neck, chest, heart, liver and kidney. He opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries to the vital organs like brain, heart, lungs, liver and intestines. The approximate time of death was 18 to 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. He also opined that those injuries can be caused with the weapons like M.Os. 4 and 5. 14. Practically, the evidence of P.W.8 and the recitals in Ex.P8 remain unchallenged. The medical evidence leaves no room to doubt that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to injuries to the vital organs like brain, heart, lung, liver and intestines. 15. The accused are not also seriously disputing about the cause of the death of the deceased, as spoken to by P.W.8. 16. Now, what is to be seen is whether the accused are the assailants of the deceased or not ? 17. The incident is said to have occurred on 25.3.2005 at about 4.00 p.m., while P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.2 were returning to the house of the deceased. 18. P.W.1 is no other than the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and brother of P.W.1. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.2 to secure some money and P.W.2 gave an amount of Rs.200/- to the deceased. While they were returning to their house, the incident is alleged to have taken place near the kirana shop of P.W.6. P.W.10, who observed the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch has categorically stated that he seized the blood stained stones from the scene of occurrence, besides the blood stained clothes M.Os. 1 to 3 from the dead body of the deceased. It is not even suggested to P.W.10, that the scene of occurrence is not the place near the kirana shop of P.W.6. 19. The entire incident rests upon solitary testimony of P.W.2. The wife of the deceased, P.W.1 and P.Ws. 3,4,5 and 6 who were examined to speak about the incident did not support the case of the prosecution. They have given complete go bye to their earlier version of incident as stated to the police. Even after cross- examination, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the crime. So, when the case rests upon solitary testimony of a witness, it must be true, cogent and trustworthy. If the evidence of a solitary witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence and to base a conviction on the solitary testimony of the said witness. On this aspect, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in VADIVELU THEVAR vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS & OTHERS ([1]), wherein the Supreme Court held thus: “If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality 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. 12. 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. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” 20. It is therefore, clear from the above decision that when a witness is in the category of wholly reliable, his evidence can be accepted and conviction can be maintained. 21. No doubt, P.W.2 is no other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. However, his presence at the time of occurrence of the incident is found to be probable and acceptable. As he had no animosity or rancor against the accused to implicate them falsely, there is no difficulty in accepting his evidence. While evaluating the evidence of a witness, two important factors have to be taken note of, namely, (1) whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe his presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situation as would make it possible for him to witness the facts deposed by him and (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unbelievable in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that on 25.3.2005 at about 2.00 P.M., P.W.1 and the deceased came to his house and as required by them, he advanced an amount of Rs.200/ to P.W.1 and he was also accompanying them to their house. However, when they reached the scene of occurrence, both the accused came to the road and picked up a quarrel with the deceased stating that he was informing the police about the thefts committed by them and so saying they stabbed the deceased. When P.W.2 tried to rescue his brother-in-law he was pushed aside. Thereafter, A1 and A2 threw boulders on the head of the deceased so as to ensure the deceased died. Immediately thereafter, PW.1 and P.W.2 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. 22. No doubt, the wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and she has given complete go bye to her earlier statement. Simply because, a witness turned hostile, that does not mean that her entire evidence would be wiped off from the record. Such part of the testimony, which inspires confidence can be used to support the other reliable evidence on record. PW.1 stated that on the date of the incident, at about 2.00 p.m., herself and her husband went to P.W.2 and after taking money, they were returning back to their house and when they reached the house of Sarojamma at about 4.00 P.M., some persons picked up quarrel and caused injuries. Then, immediately she and P.W.2 went to the III Town Police Station, Nandyal where P.W.2 drafted a report in her presence and she affixed her thumb impression. However, she resiled from her earlier statement made in Ex.P1. 23. In view of the fact that she has given a complete go bye to her earlier version, the recitals in Ex.P1 cannot be treated as substantive evidence, but at best, it can be used to support the evidence of P.W.1 to the extent of herself and P.W.2 going to the police station and lodging a complaint with the police. P.W.1 categorically stated in her evidence that herself and her brother-in-law Chakali Venkateswarulu (P.W.2) went to III Town Police station, Nandyal. The evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that himself and P.W.1 lodged a report to police within one hour after the incident. Such is the case, there is no scope or possibility for P.W.2 to foist a false case against the accused. There is no prior possibility or enemity for P.W.2 to foist a case of this nature against the accused. Therefore, the First Information Report, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that P.W.2 was present at the time of occurrence of the incident. If he was not really present at the time of incident, there was no scope or possibility for him to rush to the police station along with P.W.1 for lodging a report within one hour after the incident. In fact, the presence of P.W.2 has been specifically stated by P.W.1 and it was also mentioned in Ex.P1. Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. Even in the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.2, as to why he has to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailants. It is suggested to him, that some followers of Chinna Narsimhulu attacked the deceased and caused injuries, but that has been denied by him. Though P.W.2 admitted that his mother is the kept mistress of Chinna Narasimhulu and the mother of P.W.2 on the request of Chinna Narsimhulu used to sell arrack, the accused are not related or shown to be close associates of Chinna Narasimhulu. Therefore, in such circumstances, implicating the accused falsely cannot be accepted in the absence of rancor or enemity for P.W.2 to fabricate a false case. In the facts of the case, the presence of P.W.2 is established beyond reasonable doubt and there is every scope for him to witness the incident as the incident has taken place at about 4.00 p.m,. and there is no other reason for him to speak false against the accused. 24. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of P.W.2 has to be rejected on the ground that his evidence is not supported by any other evidence cannot be accepted for the reason that his evidence can be put in the category of wholly reliable witness. Therefore, in such circumstances, conviction can be maintained even without there being any corroboration. 25. Further more, the accused were arrested on 26.3.2005, i.e., on the next day after the incident at about 11.00 a.m. and in pursuance of their confessional statements, M.Os. 4 and 5 were seized at the instance of A1 and A2. Similarly, blood stained shirts of A1 and A2 were seized under Ex.P7. Those material objects were sent to the forensic science laboratory and in view of the fact that they contained human blood when analysed by Serologist, the same is incriminating against the accused. This also probablises the case of the prosecution that M.Os. 4 and 5 are used in the commission of offence. Further more, P.W.8, the doctor has categorically stated that with those knives, the injuries as noticed by him in Ex.P8 can be possible. 26. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused might have committed the offence upon a sudden quarrel without there being any provocation and prays to convict them under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. 27. But the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased would go to show that the deceased sustained several injuries on the vital parts of the body of deceased viz; brain, heart, lungs, liver and intestines. So, every person is presumed to know the consequence of his acts. In view of the fact that the deceased sustained as many as 19 incise injuries and from the nature of the weapons used in the commission of the offence, it is quite clear that the intention of the accused was to kill the deceased. Therefore, it is not a case, which would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder or anyone of the exceptions mentioned under Section 300 of the I.P.C. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on this aspect is untenable and cannot be accepted. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 28. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.