•3^5{ .-^|<q|(^A), ^)T-fl'yll<o, is)<^!<-!^< Nl^ldl ^rRT^ -^ 200 3iii{?T ^^ ( ^ll®3<^) ^^T^T'f^ri^ ^iT^TR^ ^RT^ -^. -, 3 "^lTW^f^^T^T APPELLANT: SESPONDENT: <^PPELL.4NT: ^ccused IESPONDENT; ^PPELLANTS; ^n Jdl) '^Rfe^T 'RTR^ff ^f 'fe^t <M<^« ^39^3^1 ^rrmmoT^Boeal No.ll06/2001 Vet^ Crimlnd Appeal Ver^us Surjan Roim, S/o Bhagtu Ram, A^ed obout 50 years, Agrjculturist and R/o village Sukhori, P.S. &. Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (Chhattis9arh) sus The State of Chhattisgarh, No.1182/2001 Bechan Ram, S/o BoniyG Ram. Aye^ about 27 years, R/o Gram Sukhari, Police Station - Thanot Ambikapur, District - Surguja. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Poiice Station - Thana Ambikapur District Surguja (C.©.) Crimsnal Appeal lNo.1211/2001 1. 2. Achambhjt Ram -S/o Budhdhurom, aged about 30 years, Occupation- Agriculturist. DhsrampQl t>oes, son of Bigan Rom Aged about 38 years, Occupation- Agriculturist. GRPRJ XI-HC—78 3^r^TPTT^r, ?$Tfl'y<i<s, fsi^i^y ^W<r\{ ^hW^h TF^ 200 3^?T 'q^cF ( li^l<s<<l^) 371^1^ [<rli<=h Tf^T ^TT^T ^h^ich v^' '^ITW^TT ^TI^T RESPONDENT; Criminal R® APPLICANTS: <=bi4i?<rt<flTi ^i^i<yff "^,rsl<i1 <^i^i< '^3^P=T3TT^T 5. 6. Pal Dos, son of Late Bigctnrom, aged about 32 years, Occupation- Agriculturist. Nohar Das, son of Pancham Das, aged about 30 years, Occupation - Agriculturist. Lakhanram, son of Chherturam, aqed about 26 years, Occupation - Agriculturist. Harihor Das, son of Thogeldas, aged about 55 years, Occupation - Agriculturist. 7. Bechdnrom, son of Baniyoiram/ oged about 27 years, Occupation Agriculturist. Al! residentg of village - Sukheri, P.5. Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.6.). Versus The State of ChhQttisgarh, Through the P.S. Jainagar, District - Sarguja (C.©.) AND ^siors No.551/2001 1. Puranrcsm, s/o Shiynandan/ a9ed About 38 years, Occupation - Agricuiture. (BROTJHER OF DECE^SED RAMNARAYAN) ~5:^ ^ww^, ?s»Tfl-yj!<o, fsj^i'y^i ^Wvii shNlcb •^ 200 3?Tt?T ^(^ ( lSGS?l€a<^^ 37T^Tj^T fe^Jch ^H^RT^F ^)NI<=h ^ '^TTW^TT^T^T ^ON-APPLICANTS: 2. (BROTHEfl Both Aml C.G\ VeH; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. '^ntf^pih 'RR^f ^ 'ft^ <P?{^I< ^ 3tfOT3TT^T Prabhuram s/o ©endQram,aged About 45 years, Occupation A9rticulture. OF DECEASED JA6&HARI) r/o villoige Ranpurkala/ P.S./Tehsi! ^ikapur, Post Sukhri, District Surguja, sus Chotku © Ram Prasad, s/o Meeruram, age 26 years, Occupation Business. Hulas Ram, g/o Bcui Prasod, age 30 years, Occupation - Agriculture. Dhani @ Dhaneshwor s/o AAuneshwar, age 48 years, Occupotion Agriculture. Bhorlu @ Mohan Das, s/o Budhari, age 60 years, Occupation Agriculture. ShyGmlal @ Amadliha s/o Devnath, age 40 years, Occupation Agriculture. Dashd Ram, s/o Agar Say, age 28 years/ Occupation Agricuiture. Ramdev, s/o Son Say, age 27 years/Occupation Agriculture. GRP 3:cST^TZTT^T, ?$Tfi'HJ|(5, fs<01^1lj,< ^TI^T^FT ^Jch ^snaiT^r 5h^|ch .^. ^INdl 9h^(cb ••^ 200 3TT^?T XT5T^ (y<^q<^T) '^TTW^f^T W^T Present: Shri Neeraj Mehta, counsel for thc Shri fiurudev Sharan, counsel for tl Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for th< Shri Rqjesh Tiwari, counse! for the Shri U.N..S. Deo, Additional Public Dsvisiors Bench: ~ Hors'ble Shri HonbleShn L.C. Bhadoo. J. Crimina! Appeo! No.ll06/20pl No.1182/2001 filed by Bechan Ran|, <=hi^I<n<fli HW^ ^ Fs^l <?^i^i< ^3fRPT3T^r Baldev Ram s/o Bh^atu; age 35 years, Occupation Service. (^CCUSED PERSONS) All r/o village Sukhri, P.5. Ambikcipur, bistrict Surguja, C.fi. The State of Chhottisgarh, through P.S. Jdnagor, District Sur9uja, C.G. (PROSECUTION) appellant m Cr.A. No.1106/26001. ie appsllant in Cr.A. No.1182/2001. appellants in Cr.A. No.1211/2001. Japplicants in Cr. Rev. No.551/2001. P^osecutor for the S+Qte/respondent. .€. Bhadoo & hirendra Mishra, JJ. ORAL IJU&^MENT (belivere^ on 5-4-2007) filed by SurjQn Ram, Criminal Appeal , Cr'immal Appeal No.1211/2001 filed by GP XI-HC—78 3^sr -AII^I^, ^Tfl'y4i<o, l^<71>i^^< ^W^ ^iNlch "R^ 200 37T^T ?)T f<Tlich 'cT^TT 'STT^T $b^ict» <^ 37?^?r 1cra^ (^f^t^r) '^nw 191^T 3?n^r Achambhit Ram <& Otheri Puranram <& another are arj passed by the AdditJonQi No.7/2000, therefore, all of by this common Judgmen and Criminal Revision No.551/2001 filed by ^ing out of the sam©judgment dated 16-10-"2001 S^ions Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja, in S.T. three appeals and revision are being disposed The The accused/Qppeli^nts tegGJjty and correctness sentence dated 16aB10-20(E Surqjpur, District Surguj^ Sessions Judge after conv^! Dharampal Das, Paida^, N<| Bechan Ram for commissiort I.P.C. for committing riol committing murders of Ramnath, sentenced each o|l Section 147 of the I.P.I imprisonment for life and tc fine to further undergo R^, leorned Additioncsl Sessiol Chhotku @ Ramprasad, Hul Ram/ Shyam Das @ Amda! charges. cbl^fd41"1 'WT^ ^fe^ <Fai<$l< '^'^TRpT^n^r hove preferred these appeals questioning >f th@ Judgment of conviction and order of )1 passed by th© Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. No.7/2(X)0 whereby !eQmed Additiond [icting accused persons namely, Achambhit Ram/ ^har Das, Surjan, Lakhan Ram, HQrihcsr Das & of offence under Sections 147 and 302 of the Qs members of unlcwvful assembly Qnd for R^mnarayon, Amar Sd, Jagdhari and Palva c^f the accused to undergo R.I. for 1 year under F. and under Section 302 IPC to undergo poy a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of |.I. for 5 months for each murder. However, |is Judge acquitted accused persons namely, \]ps Rom/ Dhani @ Dhanesh^ar, Bhorlu @ Mohcin IJhQ/Dashd Ram, Ramdev and Baidev of oll the XI-HC—78 S:TT^T ^T R^i<=h ^TS?T STI^T'^qNR' 3^' ^l^l^^, ^xQ-y^l^, fcl^iyy 6 ^ff^f ^hWch -^ 200 3^5T'^W (^f^^y) ^^nw^ftcr <3n^r the case OT The pr p.m. Ramnaroyan, Amar S< along with ©ulabDas (PW-3 Sukhri. They were sitting] time, 200-300 persons cc started attacking RamnQr< Shankor (PW-16) and ©u| J^dhori, they attacked h| they attacked RQmnQrGy^n Thereofter, they attackec of the house/ he al$o fe! injuries spontaneously. H< to escope ond ran awoy s^ord which was thrown 9y by on©Ramdev. Amar Sd known^ The accused per^ Marpeet. Accused Chhotl Pulas, Dhani, Bhurlu, Shj^ Lokhanram, Dashai, Ram^ were involved in the M( Thengcs. Mer9 intimGtion (^: RQm. Dehati First Infor|- CM^(<yl<fl«1JTR^f ^'fe^t ^^K ^ 3?rRpr 3^T^r ^ecUTISfs, In br'iyf, ib iliul 011 2-10-99 at about 5 , Jagdhari and Palva @ Ramnath (Qll deceosed) |5) & Kripa Shankar Singh (PW-16} went to villa9e lat the residence of Bishun Ram (PW-1). At thot |-ryin9 Lathi, club & axe came on the spot. They [yan, Amar Sai, Jagdhari, Palva © Ramnath, Kripa |ab bas 0?W-15). First of all, they encircled |m, css a resu!t of which he fell down, thereafter and Palvo @ Ramnath, they also fetl down. Amar Sai in the field which was on the east slde down. All the four persons succumbed to the yjever, somehow, Kripashonkar Qnd ©ulobman^ed towards the forest. Kripashankap wos carrying / him jn the house of Bishun, which was picked up ,4'as carrying @upti, same was taken by whom is not ?ns having formed common object indulged in the u, Achambhit, Dharmapal, his younger brother Pal. ^am ©ond, Nohor Das, Boildev Harijan, Surjcn, sv, HQrihar and one Rorwa, resident of Chirmiri 'peet. These persons attacked with Lathi and x^p/43) of the above fesct was given by Bishun mtion Report (Ex-P/44) wos 9iven by Bishun Ram. ~'T XI-HC—78 3^cT -AII^I^^, ^TH-y'KS, fcf^l^i^ 'WR^IT sb^lcb •^ 200 3^T'5FTf^hT ^STT 'STT^T ^ri^ ^ 3n^?r XH^F (4C<^<^) '^nw^rf^T ^TT^T Mer9 intimotion Ex."P/45 vij Information Report Ex.-P/^6 147, 148 and 149 of the I|l left for scene of occurrencb occurrence. The 1,0. prep^red Ex.-P/17 on the body of Ex.-P/19 on the body of Pa| Amar Soi/ JagdhGri csnd exQniination to the Distri4t namely, Dr. Brijendra Kum< S.K. Sinha conducted Sd, Jagdhari and Palva @ (^< Ex.-P/ll, Ex.-P/12 and Ex.-^y of death of above persons injurses. postr?tortem After completion of csccused persons namely, Bechan Ram, Nohar Das, Bhorlu, Dhaneshwar, Bal^ AAagistrQte, 1st Cbss, Surc Sessions Judge, Syp9uja, rsceived the case on tran^fl cM^(<y1<il»1 *11*1<ll ^f^St iFal^K ^3TRpT3?n^T QS also 9'sven by Bishun Ram, based on that First for commission of offence under Sections 302, P.C, was registered. The Investigating Officer and prepared site plan Ex."P/47 of the place of inquest Ex.-P/16 on the body of RamnQrGyan, ^mar Sai, Ex.BaP/18 on the body of Jagdhori and |va @ Ramnath. The deod bodies of RamnarayQin, palva @ Ramnath were sent for postmortem tt Hospital, Ambikapur ^vhere t©Gm of doctors |ir Shrjvastava (PW-10), Dr. N.K. Pandey and Dr. on the decsd bodies of Ramnaroyan, Amar tamnath, prepared postmortem reports Ex.-P/lO, 1^/13 respectiveiy. The doctor opined that couse ^as due to shock and haemorrhQge from multiple investigation, charge sheet wos filed against the C|ihotku, Dharmapal, Achambhit, Ramdev/Surjan, L^khan RQm, HQrihar Das, Dashai, Shyom, Paldos, Icjevram, HulQsram in the Court of JudicJQl 4jpur, who in turn coi/nmitt€d the cas© to the from where leorned Additional Sessions Judge iffcr for trial. XI-HC—78 3^^T ^ll^l^^, ?$T{)H'|(5, R)cri>|yy 'W^K 9bNlcb ^ 200 ^n^r^T Rri[<=h '^T8TT 3^T^[ 5h^|ct) ^ 3^9T ^^ (^lf^^) ^nw ^f^r ^n^r agd|ist The prosecution exami establish the charges agoinst accused persons were record denied materia! appeaHn9 stated that they ore innocent Sukul Ram and Prabhuram fiiec Court to the effect that they that he is brother of decea^ Similorly, Prabhuram has also they were Qttacking Ramnarcy|sn therefore, the trial Court summoned them as Court witn^ Cr.P.C.. Sukul Rom was examin^ was examined as Court witnes^ counse! for the respective avdlable on record, acquitte^l Ramprasod, Hulas Rom, Dhani Das @ Amdaliha, Doshai Ram, convicted and sentenced th©est We have heard learnedl Learned counse! for homicidQl death of the dece{ Jagdhcsri and Pdva @ Ramn<| I^T *ii^<^T ^f^^l <Fst^i< '^'3fRR3TT^T iiied 2Z witnesses QT rhe Tnal in order to the accused persons. Statements of the l^d under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they them in the prosecution evidence. They ^nd hwe been fdseiy implicated in the crime. their affidavit on 2-11-2000 before the tria! h^d witnessed the incident. Sukul Ram stated ^d RamnQrGyan ond he witnessed the crime. |tated that he saw the accused persons when i, Amar Soi, Jagdhori and Polva @ RamnGth, c^nsidering their affidavits and appiications |ss exercising power under Section 311 of the ^d as Court witness No.l, whereas, Prabhu Ram No.2. The tria! Court after heoring ieorned p^rties, ©xaminationof the record/evidence th©occused persons name!y, Chhotku @ @ Dhaneshwap, Bhorlu @ Mohan Rcsm, Shyam >amdev and Baldev of d! the charges whereos, xused/appellants as aforementioned. counsel for the parties. the accused/appellants have not disputed xsed persons nameiy, RGmnQrayan, Amar Sai, 1-h. Moreover, PW-10 Dr. Brijendra Kumor XI-HC—78 ^V^ ^|Aj|0^, ^^^|<S, fc|0|<-|^< . w^r^'f^ri^' ^SH -sn^T 5b^ic^ 'RTRRW 5bN(cb ^ 200 3?T^?r'q^RF (^f^<8T) ^^<iiW ^f^a ^n^r ShrlvQStwa who conducted p^ four deceased persons has ^ haemorrhag^ fron^ multiple ir^ ordinary course of ncsture to it is established that death ofl As for as involvement c is concerned, witnesses nameh PW-4 Mahendra, PW-5 Shas^ cM<4(<n<flTi ^I^KII? ^f^st <fa^i< i? 3?yRR ^n^r l)5tmortem on th©dead bodies ot the above (tated that cause of death woss shock and puries. The injunes were sufficient in the ^ause death. Therefore, in view of the above, ^he obove persons were homicidal in nature. f the accused/appellants in crime in question ', PW-2 Kishun, PW-3 AAithilesh Kumar ©upta, li ©upta,PW-6 Ramsunder, PW-7 Sukhnath, PW-8 Duhan, PW-9 Pulsd, P^V-13 Siyachand, PW-18 eirjanandari, PW-19 Kdamsai and PW-20 Shiv Pr^d have turned hostile ond they have not supported the prosecution ca^e. The evidence of Court witness Sukul Ram and Prabhu Rom hos not been |?elieved by the trial Court in para-SS of the judgment. It has been men^ Ranpur whereas, the incident 1^ook place in the villa9e Sukhri i.@. oibout 5 km awoy from the village Ranpur. 9ro^s in the field of Bishun R^im (PW-1). The Court observed that conduct of this witness is not trustwo^thy for the reoson that there wos no reason to 30 5 km QWOV to cut grass Ranpur. The evidence of Cour ioned that Sukul is the resident of yilbge ^le has stated that on that day he went to cut as same wos available in the fields of village witness Prabhu Ram has been disbelieved on the 9round that he has not stc^ted that he, in fact, saw the accused persons attacking the deceased person^ But he has stated that he SQW the accused persons turning dead bodies o^f the deceased persons which appears to be unbelievQble for the reoson tHat he has stated that he was informed about ~S:5^ ^WW^, ^-^\W[<£,, ^^>W^< 10 ^l^ldl (b^licb •R^ 200 3?T§p?T X[5TO ( (iG<tflQ<<^) 'STT^T^I ^ich 'cT^T^n^y w^^! ^T<TTW ^Tf^T ^^ t^is the incidenf by PW-15 ^ulab Uas, village Ranpur at a distance of 5 km. vilfage Sukhri, thereafter he scffiv bodies of the deceased persons, might have taken minimum 1 hour thereafter this person went to villa^ accused persons to stay at the pl< reosons assigned by the trial Court two witnesses are reasonable and pla|, that he went to cut grass in the fi| stated that Suku! came on the fatet from that, Sukul Es the brother of d< interested witness and hi5 eviden<| estGblish his presence ot the pl4 evidence does not inspire confidence Now we are left ^ith the ev| Kripctshankar. As far as evidence of substontia! improvement in the Cour^- undsr Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.-D/l) accused persons who ottacked the Court he has stated that he saw tfl DhQrampai, Nohar and Bechon while Sai. This fact was not disclosed U^ <=M^<n41r1 tTTR^ff ^* fe^t ipsl^K '^^Tfm^r^r ^ho cdtme dll Ths woy !u inror'rn hini lo ^fter receiving information, he went to -^ie occused persons turning the dead fact CQnnot be believed because it time for reaching PW-15 to Ranpur, le Sukhri. It ^as not possible for the <ce of occurrence for one hour. The for disbelieving the evidence of these isib!e. Moreover/ Suku! Ram has stated i^!d of Bishun whereas/ Bishun has not |ul day to cut grass to his field. Apart ceased Ramnaroyan, therefore, he is an |©is not sterling worth in order to of occurrence. Therefore, their |of the Court. !ct:e Idence of PW-15 eulab Das and PW-16 |PW-15 ©u!abis concerned, he has made evidence. In his statement recorded Ihe hod not disc!osed the name of the deceased persons whereo^, before the }€accused persons namely, Achambhit, <(sttacking Jagdhari and thereafter Amctr him before the 1.0. while giving his GRF XI-HC—78 3^cT ^||<4t<yi)A|, ^Tn-M41<o, fs)01-(riy 11 ^Wvt\ shNlcb ^ 200 3?1^T?PT f^vl[ch 'cfsn 'STT^T s^^icfi i^ wi?r ^^ (4C<^<^> '^HW^T'STT^T statement under Section 161 Crl! persons attacking the deceased hes stoted that if it has not wri that Achambhit, Dharampal, Bec| occurrence, he cannot assign ony he denied a!most all the por^i statement was not given by hi^n ©xaminQtion-in-chief, on being stoted that 20-25 persons com^ H©wa5 oble to identify only 4 pe\ and Bechan. He hos further s|t whether the accused persons pr^ persons who came on the spot b the above evidence of this witnei was on the spot or he identified Sd and Jagdhari. It is admitted Ranpur which was the village o1 disctosed the source of knowh poirticularly when they are beloh^ing the Investigating Officer did no'1 parade of the accused persons witness was able to identify th< party nor thi5 person has stat^ named and identified were knowni chl^fd^1si 'WT^f '?,'fe^ <Rn^K ^3ifiTH371^r P,C. regarding witnessin9 the four accused )ersons. In para-7 of cross-examination, he 1-ten in his police diary statement (Ex.-D/l) mn and Nohar were present at the place of [reason for the same. In cross-examlnation, ion of his statement Ex,-D/l thot such to the police during investigation. In |uestioned by the Court this witness has on the spot. He could not identifyi them. ^sons namely, Achombhit, Dharampal, Nohar ^Qted that he is not in a position to tell ^sent in the Court are out of those 20-25 fccause he does not know them. In yiew of js, it is difficult to believe that this witness !east 4 persons attackin9 deceased Amar IposEtion that this witness belongs to village the deceased persons also. H©has not ^ge about the identity of these persons to other village namely Sukhri. Even take trouble to arrange for identification |in order to ascertdn o^ to whether this persons who were members of attacking |d that Qccused persons to whom he has to him prior to the incident. dt T^ ^WW^, ^xfi^^KS, Rf<?l>iy^< 12 ^INdl sh^lch •TF^ 200 3n^?r XT^TO (4^f^<^r) W^T.SRT R<lich WITan^FT •N^ISF V '^TTW^Tf^T W^T PW-1 Bishun ot whose residerhce resident of villoge Sukhri, has staf persons standing in the Court wer deceased persons. Therefore, evide? confidence, It is settled law that if| statement under Section 161 Cr. Improvement made in the Court evide|ice the incident took place, who is the Eted in his evidence that the accused ^ not the persons ^ho attacked the ^ce of PW-15 6ulob Das does not inspire |any witness has not said €tnythin9 in his p.C. recorded by th@ 1.0. and any cannot be believed. fur-ther Now the evidence of PW-16 tria! Court has believed and convid scrutinized. This witness hos statel he at the plcsce of occurrenc^. incident they were in the house of corrying Lathi, club, Tabbal, ^word) storted attackin9 them. He has AchimbhEt/ Nohar DQS, Surjan, Be| ottacking the deceased persons, th^^ the accused persons. As G result Jagdhori and Amar Sai fe!! down. club. He ran oway and came to his ^< ribs & right thigh, He has also injuries were examined through pol^ report has been produced by the presence at the scene of occurren^ .00. <=bl^<yt<lflr1 'RTR^f ^ fl^t Tf^ZR i^ ^tirw 3:TT^r Kripashankar on whose testimony the ed th@ accused persons remains to be that along with th©deceosed persons He has ^tated that at the time of Bishun. They saw that 25-30 persons and stones in their hands came, they stated that accused DhQrampa!, Pd/ ;han, Lakhan and Harihar DGS started are today present in the Court among of the attack made by these persons Tiey ateo attacked him 4-5 times with a ?use. He sustained injuries on the right in para-8 of his evidence that hi^ ;e station Sur'ojpur. But no such injury prosecution in ord©rto establish his ;e. He hos dso chcsnged thc version of st^ted XI.HC—78 3^5T ^1^10^, ^Tfl'^KS, fcf01<rt^< ^: 13 ^l^fdl ^NIcb •W^ 200 371^T?FT f<rii.<=h T[SIT 'STT^T $t»^i<^ \^ 3T^T ^T^ ( yifyg^) '^TTW^f^r 3>n^r the prosecution case that supported the prosecution s| occurrence with the deceasedl CrP.C. he has denied that he in fact, 20-25 persons came police statement Ex.-D/2 is n| cros3nexQminatJon that he is commission of offence under offence under Sections 294 Surajpur. h<j)w he reached "on-fHe spot i.e. he has not tory regarding his coming to the place of Ipersons. In his statement under Section 161 s^Qted before the police that 50 persons came, ind attacked. TTie figure of 50 recorded in |?t correct. This person also admitted in his fQcin9 criminal trial for murder case, on@ for iection 376 of the I.P.C. and another on@ for \& 506-B of the I.P.C. in various Courts at PW-l Bishun at whose H the prosecution case. He hos not party to those persons question arises before the Cou}lt this witness before the Cour Ranpur, the incident took plac^ km, he has not disclosed the thcst how he WQS knowing the that the eight accused person^ i^ere known to him prior t< identification parade particular 200-300 persons came and Imperotive to have arranged ic^es <=M€lf<y1<ilTt'RW^lf '?f,'felSt iFat^K ^3?Jf?W3?n^T ^idence incident took place has not supported ttated that persons present in the Court were |/ho attacked the deceased persons. Again about the veracity of the evidence giyen by ^ that this person is also the resident of in village Sukhri which is at a distance of 5 of identification of the accused per^ons ^ccused persons by name. He has not stated to whom he has identified before the Court the incident nor the 1.0. arranged for fly when the case of prosecution is thot about tsttacked. In these circumstances, it was j^entification parade to csscertoin the identity scturce 3-^- ^l'qi^'q, ^Tfl'H^KS, fsf^l'My 14 ^l^^tl 9h^|cb •Tf^ 200 3TT§t?T ^F3K (^^^ ) ^TT^T^ ^}ch ^T^T^T^T ^TT^ ^^R'Hftn^n^r CM<LljQl4r1 'HR^ff ^T ft^T <p3l^« '^sif^Tw^r of personswho attacked the decease that in fact Achambhit, DharompQt. and AmarsaE whereas, this pers< Achcimbhit, Nohar, Surjon, Bechon/ deceased per^ons. Therefore, thi makes the evidence of these witness< ^ persons- PW45 &ulab Dos has stated Nohor and Bechan attacked Jcsgdhari n has stated that Dharampa!, Pal, ILGkhon and Harihar Das attQcked the contradictEon is aiso mQterial ^hich ^ doubtful. Therefore/ tooking to the n^ture and for the reasons mentioned earlier, we are of the considered opi ion that evidence of this witness js not sterling worth. Moreover, he is a ^rson with criminal bcickground against whom criminal cases of serious crimii djfficuit to sustain conviction ba^ed Apex Court in the matter of Bhlmap] ^al charge were pending, therefore, it is on sole testimony of this witness. The IQ ChandQppa Hosamani & Ors* Versus State of Karnatska reported In 2C|06 (10) SBR 13, judgment dated 20th September 2006 hsld that:- .on the basis of witness o conviction rr cautioned that while satisfled that the tes1 is of such sterling quc|lity that th©Court finds it sofe to Q conviction witness. In doing so tl^ of the witness by r evidence. The evidencl the testimony of a single eye cy be recorded, but it hos afso dolng so the Court must be imony of the solitory eyewitness ^olely on the testimony of that \e Court must test the credibitity sference to the quality of his s must be free of any blemish or GRPP XI-HC—78 3'^T ^N10<M, ^^^Ko, fc|(ri>|^^< 15 ^l^dl (h^Scb Wi, 200 ^TT^T ?5T f<vlich '^STT '^n^T $t)^icb \. ^..Y 3^?T ^R^ (4c<fl^<^T) '^TTW^rftcf 3TT^T ^ui!pl<slyn, musl must appear to Court has no he^ on the basis of tfl On the basis of above p PW-16 KripGshankor/ for the P( be sdd to be steriing worth. h| the Court in order to convi testlmony of this 1'yitness, }lsipre^ !hy Cuuiul 03 wholly truthful, |>e natural ond so convincing that the |totion in recordin9 a conviction solely ^e testimony of cs single witness." ^inciple, if we put to the test of testimony of IQSOHS mentioned earlier, his testimony cannot is @videnc€does not inspire full cGnfidence of ::t the accused persons based on the sole In the matte.r of Chanj of Blhar reported in (2001)) Apex Court held that;- "The Constitutioh of Masafti v. St^i under the Evider a single witness pergons, witnesses which to sustdn the criminal court the commission of offenders, i-1 conviction couldl wherebs CM<if<yt<i)rf jffR^f ^f,fec^ <f^t^l< ^ 3?iRiH 3n^r Ira Shekhar1 Bind and Others versus State 8 Supr@rr§©Court Cases 690, in pGira-9/ the Bench of this Court hos, in the case te fff U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 202} held that ke Act, trustworthy evidence given by TOuld be enough to convict the accused evidence given by half'-a-dozen is not trustworthy would not be enough ;onviction. It was held that where a to deol with evidence pertGsining to ?f an offence involving a large number is usuol to adopt the test that the be sustained only if It is supported by hbs XI-HC—78 TwT ^l^l^^, t$Tf)-M'l^, fc|0|-(-)^< 16 'WTCT' sbN(4» •^ 200 3H^?T TT^? (^clf^^) 3?n^r ^T ^jch ^^Tl'STI^T 9F^N5> ^RiTW^rf^ t3?n^T cbl<lf<vl<I1»l^TFRTf ^f^st <i^t^K ^3iRm3?iT^r -->•• two or three or ^rsore witnesses who give a consistent account of the i|icident. It was held that in a sense, the test mcy be ^ be treated as Errl that even though rrsatter^ csnd not| useful to odopt witness theory h^ also been adopted by this Court in the case of Binay h©ldthat there is| can be based uil witnesses hove i| member of the uri axiomatic that evi weighed and it is lescribed as mechanica!, but it cannot ationd or unreasonable. It was held it is the quality of the evidence that the number of witnesses/ still it is such a mechanicG! test. This two- KumQr Singh V. State of Bihar1. It i$ no rule of evidence that no conviction i!@ss a certdn mJnimum number of Jentifled a particular accused os a !awful assembly. It is held that it is idence is not to be counted but only not the quantity of evidence but the qudity that rriQ'fter5. It is held that even the testimony of one sufficient to est^blish the identificotion of an accused as a member of ar| quite large and m incident, it would single witness is wholly reliable, is unlawful assembly. It is held that all the same, when -fhe size of the unlawful assembly is xny persons would have witnessed the be a prudent exercise to insist on at lecst two relicsjble