HI6H COURT OF CHHATTI-SSARH AT BIL4SPUR M-t- APPELL4NT (Injail) APPELL4NT dn Jcil) Cora!": Hon'ble Mr.T. Hon'ble Mr'.R. JJ Crimina! Ae&e-a! No.137 of 1991: •» MohGdffy^ Son of Ncy^i Raut^ a^ed about 39 years. Cultlvator. resident of Villaae i&tpanar, Police Station uarbha, iSistrict Bastnr. Ve-rsus The Stats of Madhya Pradesh (Now (-nnarrisgeirn) Cftt ApDeal No.264 of 1991 Junu @ 6ota, S/o Nani Tstti Raut, aged about 40 years, R/o VMa.Qa Kapona.r, Potice Station uarbhc, District Bastar. Versus The State of AAadhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisqarh) (APPEALS UNDER SECTEON 374(2) OF THE CO&E OF C\ PROCEbURE,1973) Pre-se"t: .V.r.R.N.Jhc and Mr'.Anurag Shr'ivastnya, counsel for the appetlants. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha, by.&ovt.Advocate for -ttie Stdte/resDondent. ' / (Pcssed on 3rd Feb| The judgment of the Court was de 1.' Crimina! Appga! No. 137/1991 f'ted by oj No-264/1991 fiied by appetlant-Junu| jud.gment of conviction & orderof sen1( ...•First'Adilit'on"! Sessions Juclge, Bos^ isn? •uary, 2010} 1 '^ered byT.P.Sha"ma. !T.:- 3|3pe!lemt-Mahadey <& Crimihal Appec! 6ota ars arising oijit of the en^ence dated 25.1.1991 passedby the |ar at Jagdalpur, in Sessions Tr'idl No.274/89, ther-efore, fijciQr?lerit. they cre being disposed of by this common 2. The aforesaid crimina! appeais are directed against the Judgment of conyictior1. Si order* of se?it®nc^ dsted 25.1.1991 passsd by th% Fir'st AdditioHGl Ssssions Juda^, B^xstar ct -JaQdalDur, in S^ssions Trio! No.274/89, whereby A 'chereursder lear'ned First Additional Sessions -Judge aftsr" hoidino aoDsHcOTt-Mihadey in Cr'iniina! ADDSO' No.137/1991 & appellnnt-Junu @ 6ota i". Criminal Appea! No.264/1991 guilty for commission of culpable homicidal death amounting to mur-der of deceased Somar'i m sharing common intention, convicted under Sect'ion 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, each of then> have sentenced to under9" i''isonment for' life. 3. JudgiTent is impug"ed on +he ground •riiat iearned First .Additiono.! Sessions Judqe hos conyicted and sentsnced the copsSlants o" the basis of conjec1i"'e and surmises and the evidence of solitary re.lative wi'tness Ku-Shy<xnlbclti lpW"2) whoss ev'dsnce is full of omissions, contrad'ctions fsr\d does not inspire confidenc^ <2nd thereby cow^ltted iHe^Qlit/. 4. Case of tiie pi'osecution, in brief, is that on •the fcsteful day of 28.4.89 at about 8.10 a."<- Smt. Somat'i, wife of M.ahadey 9>W-'l) flind mo+her of Ku.Shyambciti (PW-2) were going to K'atekalya" n'ar'ket for' setling dry fish- Both the appellaits were waiting the deceased, they were in hidden position. V/hen the deceased a"d l&j.Shyamba+i (PW-2) reached near the csppetla"ts. appetlcmt -Junu shot arrow upo" Somari ond caused injury over' her shou'der', he 'again shot arrow and jcaused injur'y over' her private part. LDDsilnnf M<sh©d£yshot arrow ove^ h^r rioht Dstyis and Qbdomer1. Ku.Shyambati (PW-2) tr'ieci'To ran c^ipy fr-om ths spot, appeltonts efso chnsed fier ond shot arrow UDO" her deceased fe!l down in •fr.a land. then flr.d a!so assaulted to Somari by cxa b"'t anyhow she sayed herself. The appeHaits came near- the deceased ^v&rker head.Ku.Shyamttati (PW-2) ,;~carRe to, her father and narrated the incident, then AA.chaelev PW-1) .-———^-~^" n?s?lrsstsd thc ipcids^t to KotWQr. PQI^! ond otlisr nsrsons Qnd wetl!t to poiice statlon whlch is 33 ki|o?"stsr*s cwoy from the p!<ice of incident a"d !cisd 'ti^ei F.X.R. yids Ex.P/l ori the sscond d&y. Tt'is '!ny®stiQQtirlQofflcer Droceeded for the scene of occurrence. Aftec summonina the witnesses vide Ex.P/3, inquest oyer the dead body of deceased Somari was prepQr'ed yids Ex-P/2. Onc arrow was seizsd froiift Ku,Shysxmbati (PW-2) yide Ex.P/4. BIoodstciined soil ond Dlain soil wgrs selzed from th®soot vide E?c.P/5- t)ead body of the dec^ased wcs sent for autopsy to Priw&fy Health Centrs. ICQtsk<x!VQH vlds Ex.P/22. AUIQDSV WQS conduct&d by Gr.T'tdi'^iiit 6uptc pVi/-5) u'de. E?(.P/6 nnd found foilowing injuriss over" the body of the de.ceased, , 1) One "'ound oyer fronta! bone, size 3 cms. ?< 5 cr"s. x 3 cms. 2) On^ v"ou"d oyer ri^ht fronts! !^ons^ size 4 cf^s. x 3 cms. 3) Four nrrows were. found in the Ibody of the deceased 4) Ons arrov. was found ovsr !eft arm and chest up to 3''d and 4 ribs nnd iungs were fQund punctured 5) Sscond crrow was found i.n the un'bificus area penetrating injury on ths Qbdon1s®n. 6^ Thlfd ctr'rov'/ WQS found over the rioht iabici mciioro T) Forth arrow WQ.S found oyer the right e'bow Joip.t and ri^ht shoulder beath was due to shock as a result of fatal injuries over the chest and dsc>th wns ho"Ricidn! ^ noturs. 5. Appellant Mahadev was take" into custody on 3.5-89. He mode disclosure stateme"t of'axe yide Ex-P/lS and blo^dstainad a>;e was recovered ct the / in^taice of oppellant Mahadey "ids Ex.! custody op. 3.5-89. He made disciosun ' ^x-P/15. One bow and 'rt'r'ee ar'r'ows "ppellint Junu yide Ex.P/16- One axe vide Ex.P/17. 0"e bow was yecovered fj -'After du'topsy, four arr'ows aid c!othe '/14. AppeJlent Junu wcs taken into •staten'.ent of bow and a.rftiw vide uer'e recovered at the iristance of was recovered from anDdilant Junu rfT om appel.lant Mahadey vids Ex.P/18- ^ of the dececssd wer% sg!2;sd vid<e Ex.P/19- Or'naments of the deceased were seized yide Ex.P/20. Spot map was Dr£p<xrted by !nyestt<3atwo officer yid®Ex-P/2L Ssizsd Qr'ticJes were sent for chemica! examsna+ior! ylde Ex.P/23 ond presence of blood over arrows a!fid a?<e wers confir'nled yids chsnnico! ®xQminQtionr®DortEx-P/24. 6. Stcft®?Tls^tsof "H^s witnsssss wer^ recordsd under Ssct'o'n 161 of ifie Cods of Criminttl Procedur'e, 1973 (in short 'Code'). Aftar cotnple+io" of inysstioGition, chctrcis sh^st wng fTJAri befors ths Judicia! M^Qi^t^'sts Fi^st Class, JcEgdclpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, J^fiQdQlDur, frrtm whft?*e !^<tmed FIFtst .Addltlonc1! Ssssions -Jud<3e, BostQr Gt Jagdalpur, receiyed the case on trfflisfer for tr'ial. 7. Zn order to Droye th®Qui't of th% c^cused/c'pDellantis, the pros^cution excimined cs many as 6 witnesses Staten'ents of the accused/appellants w^-rs ri cor>ded undsr Ssction 313 ofi the- Cods vi^isrs thsv der)i©dthe c-ircutnstcjtc^!S csppsarinQ G"Qins+ the^ snd D's^ded innocence alnd false iinDiicatson.. Th®cDDello^ts hdye olso s5<Qn^ly$d defence ^ity'ssses Sukiu (DW-1) c"d Kosru (DW-2), who h.cve deposed that at the time of jncident, the appe!lants were not present in the vHSage and they were present in their in-i.aws house. 8. Aftsr* affording an opportunity of hearing to the part'ffs, i^arned F!'n5+ ^ddltioncxl 5©ssloy11s Jud^e, BQStor' ctt JciQdQ!s®ur has conyicted a.nd senteitced 'tfie acGu^d/o;DDs!!Qnts as afo?*enlfir1tioned. 9. We haye heard Mr.R-N-Jha and Mr.Anur'ag Shriyastcyc, counse! for the appe!!ants and Ml".Rckesh Jha, t5y-6ovt.Advoc/ite for the State/respnrident <snd perused the juilgnnent inr»pugned as a!so record of the triai Court. 10. LeJ2pn©dcounse! for the GppsHcyits y^l'tet^£nt!y of ths <H3D&Ha?its 13 based on sole Ku.Shyambati (PW-2) whose evidenGe ^net does not inspirs confidenc^. Sh<s h el^e'flently argued that the|conyictio" tsst'Tiony of inter'ested witn^ss lis full of ofn!ssions. coi+radictions 1 h^s SDeci'flcciHv c!©Dosecithc'1 shs hos "ar'*'ated the incident to her father uid to!d hinn that somebody ho-s Qssault&d her ?nothsr shows thGt at 11^% ti^ne of lodging th®rsport, the; perso"s who haye cau»dfatal irsjuries to the deceased wer'e unknow" and the present appel'ants haye bsen falsely impl'cated in •rtie crime in question. Learned counse! furriier argued that suspicioii howeyer' graye ccnnot take to pieice of evidence and ths p''osecution Is required to stand on its own 'e^s. 11- Learned counse! placed reliiance in the motter of State of Rajasthsn v. Bhanwar Singh vr, which the Apsx Court has he!d thoit deisr^of or.s. dsy in loddinq of the F.I.R. is fatal to 'the Drosecution- Learned counsel furthe!" ploced relia".ce in the matter of -Sodhu Ram ar'd anothsr' y. Stat®"f Rajasthon in which the Apsx Court has he!d thst corsviction conbe bcsed 1 on 1+ie tsstimony of solitary wi+ness ir) such a case the Court must be satisfied that imp'icit re!ia"ce cwi be placsd on the tes+imony of such a witness cnd that his testinnony is of frpe of b'emish that it can be acted upon wi+hout insisting upo" corroboration. 12-0n the other hand, Isamed State/respondent counset supported the judgment impugned cnd argued that the conviction of th.e csppellants is bcsed o" direct evidence of Ku.Shyambati (PW-2) corrobora+ed by '•ecoyery of we<yons at th.e instance of the cippeliants, though Ku.Shvambati ff'W-2^ is a relative witness but her Dfesence at the time of incident was noturcl and her evidence cannot be d'scorded only on the ground that she is relative. She hcs catego''ical!y stated the case of the prosecutio" a"d her statement is sufficient for conyiction of the appe'lant^,/ 13-1" order to appreciate the argument: . we have examined the mater'ial avaih homicidal death as a resu!t of f"ttt! s '2005-SCC(Cn'!73 '22Q04SCC.fCri1JQO ' 'gdvcinced on behalf of the parties, a()!e on record. In the present case. i^jur-ies found oyer the bpdy of the '•w'sSSk "s-iiajg ,.S!'JF !S>r dececssed Soma'i has not been s-ibst&nfiaiiy disputed, on the other harid also established by the evidence of &r'-Indrajit (Sup+a (PW-5) and oxitopsy report Ex.P/6 which. reveals thnt four fata! arrow shot injuries wer'e found over the chest effecting the lungs, nbdomen, private part (labia majoro) and right scapular region which nre sufficient for causing death and death yycis howcidci! in HQture. l4.As re9tt>'':'s th.e complicity of +RB •accused/oppet.tants m the crims in questio", the conviction is bosed on the evidences of Ku-Shyai'bati (PW-2), dttughter- of the deceased, who hns deposed v. her eyidenc" that at the tiwe of iticident,. she; Qlo"^ wl'H'* her snQther deceased SomoEri w^re 90i"5 to Katekalyon (ncrket for selling dr'y fish. ^The accused were presat in hidden position i" the field of Labdi- Both the appellants have shot arrows upon her (no+he'' oyer her hand, abdome^) and ch.est. Appellant Junu has ossciuEtec! her i^other' bv Qvs ovsr her Head c"id ch<sek Q!H<^ her inothe.r disd on the spot. Thereafter, the oppel!ants!chasedhertill her house. She went inside the house and nar-rated ths incident to her father and one Rati. befence has cross-examined this wi+ness at Isngth. In para 3 of her cross-exam'nation, she hcs deposed that the qspeltants had shot four wfows upon her mother. She has also deposed that she has stcted to the pol'.ce, but she does not know why The poiice has not written the scwe vn Ex-D/l. She has daposed in para 4 of her cr-oss-examination that they were going through. road and people ussd to go by thnt road- She hss also adn'!tted that after" first ar'row shot iniury, her mother tr'ied to run away, then she also run along with her< mothe?', but subseqyently her niother fe!l down. She^ent to her house and told her fa+her that some persor! has kHled her mothsr ""^t ~V 7st '?;N tt 'ItRTS". She hasadraitted that she again we"t wi+h her sister Samal whi she saw the dead body of her mol+ii thes'e- She has admitted' i" oora 5 of f"^~ •fher'e was no enn'.i+y between her fa jier" cross-examination th.dt previously |her' and the accused persons cnd die ^6.he-{' mother was lying, at that time h- ond no other persons ufere prese"+ tias "o+ stoted the Dolics i" her stal^ment recorded under Seiction 161 of .'?: : ..':.' '^ the Code (EX.&/I) and she ccL""ot say ho"" the poiice has recorded such st<3t$rn©nt?*e!atmg to eniTtity. She WQS re-fsxc'fni'n&d by 'ttiie pr'osscutio" Qnd in parc 6 she has specifically deposed that the appallants haye assaulted by arrow shot to her n'o+her. O" being asked by •Ae defence counsel, she has agcin statad th.at after" receiving nrrow shot, her niother ond herself tried to ftae away from the spot, she run away fr'oin the spot and went +o her house and to!d to her fa+her that somebody has assaulted her mother- 15.1" the present co.se, the pr'osecution has nlso adduced eyidence re'ating to dlsc'osure statenients a"d seizure of arrows and axe from the appe!la"ts. Sub-Inspsctor Najarlyus Kujur (PW-6) has deposed the factum of disciosurs stote^&"ts ond recoysr^ of bow. oErrows cnd oxs frotn 'H'ie accused persons, but sam.e has "ot beeip corroborated by any independent witnesses. 1 16-Admittedly, the F-I..R. (Ex.P/1) was bdged on the sefcond doy i.e- on 29.4.89 at about 10.30 a.i?'., after lapse of 24 hours. The F-I.R. itself reysats that distancs of poiice station from the place of iricident is 33 kllomst€rs . The Q!cic€ of iyicide^t Is dsnse forsst Qreo. TT^£ def^>c^ has not asked anything to Mchadev (PW-1) or Najar'yus Kujur (PW-6) who hc's recorded the F-I-R- r'elating to delay in lod^ing the F-I.R. 17.Wh1!e dealin9 with the question of dsioy in todginQ the F.1.R., the Apex Court in the mstte" -of Amar Sir.gh v. Bahyjndsr Slagh srsd sthsrs hss held +hat there is "o hard-and-fast rule that any delay inlodg'ng "t+ie FIR w?nu!d cutoinaticolly render •the prosecu+io" case doubtful- It necessarily depends upop fa&ts nnd circumstonces of ecidi case whe+her there has / / . . . .• _ I. . . . \ ^ been a"y such delay in lodging the FER which may cast doubt about ths yeracit^ of the pr'osecution c"se and flar this a host of circun's'tap-ces tike , the condition <?f the first infor'dant, ^he hnture of injui"ies susjt'ained, the number' of v'ctinis. the efforts moide distance of the. hosDitot! cpd the Dolic ^o pr-oyide medicd! aid to te statior! etc. haye to bel "'> . /'• ,:.: ' d(S003) Z SCC 518. them, the +rt|<®yi Into consideratio". There is no mathematical formuta by which an inference may be dr'awn eithe'' wcsy merely on gccount of de!ny in lodging of the F-I-R- 18-.4s held by •the Apex Court In the matter of Sadhu (supra), 'Hie conviction ca" be based o" the eyidence of solitnry witness if h!s evidence is satisfisd that implieit reliance can be pinced on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so fres of blemish that it con be ccted upon without irisisting upon corroboration. Pam 16 of •riie soid judgment reads o.d under;- "16-It is no doubt true that ttie conviction of an accused ca" be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case tfcie court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be plafeed on •l+ie testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of biemish that it can be acted upon without jnsisting upon corroboration. Tne testimony of the wi+ness must be one, which "mspires confidence and leaves no dodbt in the mind of -tfie court about the trutbfuiness of the witness. In the facts of this case the credibility of Mala ftam.l PW 3 has been sufficientty impeached. VVe cannot say 1+itat Mciia Ram is a witness on whom impiicit reHonce cun be plac«y. Ws certa!n!y does not come in tiie category of a witness dn whom impilcit relianGe can be placea'. In fact we are inclinad to take theyiew That he 'is a wholly unreliable witness and no conylctlon can bs based on •the evidence of such an unreliabie witness. Even if we phce Maia Ram in the cateyory of a partiaily reliabie wi'hiess, we find no evidence to corr-Qborate -his testimony and, tiierefore, it is noT safe to base a conviction on the testimony of such a witness. Moreoyer we fina' that the medical evidence does not support his testimony. According to MnSa Ram the wife of Sadhu Ram had committed suicide. He is cateqoric in his usseri'ion that the bodies were hanging when he aiw them and their* bodies wsre bur"t thersdftsr. The medico! svide"CB^ which we find no reason to disregard, is clearly to the cpdtrory. &r. Sharma who was one or the doctors who conducted the post-mor'ter^ examinations is clsar' and categorjc in asserting that tti^-injur-ies were ante-mortem ond he has given good reasons to with accidental fire. but the same is eyidencs is Gonsistent deceased died of'burninq in ar| not consistent with the versio^) given by Maia Ram, PVV 3 that their-dead bodies were set c^blaze late''. If it were $o the (njuries found coutd not have been ante-mortem injuri^s.ond upport his opinion. The meciicai The defence cose 'riigt the th.e presencs of sooty cacbo" par'+ic'ss would "othave been found in larynx,.trachea, pharynx and esophagus." 19- Zn c/ise of cj3?iy!ction based on the tsstiFnony of soi!tGry ev*dsncls^ 't^s Apex Court in the matt-er of Jhapsa Kflbor'i nnd ethers v. -State of Bihcir has held irs para 9 as undsr':- 9...............Ther'e is, Howeyer, "o bar in basing conyiction on the testimony ot solitary witness- so long as 1tie said witness is reliable ond trustworthy. Tne Sessions Couri- and tne High Court e.i<an"ned the testimony of PW-l and found no reason to disbelieve it. We have aiso oone liirouah the testimony of PW-1. We aire aiso of 1+ie view that her deposition is most natural, reliable cnd trus+wor-i+ty. She could "ot beshaken in the cross- examination. Simoly because 14 vears' old boy did not name her in the fardbayan, in the facts of the ^ase, it is of no consequence ond does "ot reciui^e her eyidenc^ t^) bs rsjscted. Hs wyst havs been under a mental tension on iicicount of the murder of his father and unc!e. In oyr view, tfpere is no infir'mity in the conviction ond sentence of Bhikar! Raut and Israii Kabari for "ffence under Section 302/34 IPC-"! SO.While dealing with +he same question, ths Apex court m 1he ma+ter' of Chitfar Lal v. Stat®sf RajasThari has held in para 7 cs under:- 7................Thsrsfora, the p!es that. PAV.S's testimony is doubtful lacks substance. The other plea was thot conviction shoula not hwe been made on •riie boisis of a single witness (P-W. 3 's) testimony. This plea is equally wi-Hiout essence. The legislativ?, recognition of the fdct that no particular number of witnesses con be insisted upon is amply refiected in S. 134 of the Indiar! Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act). Administration of iustice can be offected and hamDered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seidom that a cristie has been committed in the presence of one witness. teavina aside -those ccxses which are not of unknown occui'rence where determinatioip of guiit depends entireiy on * circun'staitial eyidence- If plur^ility of witnesses wou'd hnys been tiie legisbtive intent cas^ where the testimony of a sin9ie witness oniy couid be a^driabie, in number of crimes offender would have gone un^unished. It is the quttli^y of evidence of The singie witnes; tested on the touchstone of cp testimony is found to be reliabli ^dibUityand reisability. If the . there is no legal iwpedin'ent *A'I^~2aOZSC31Z-_ . ', 9.^IR^003 SC 3S90- - .. 1't A- i.\ whose testimony has 1;o be !?1 II. i '^ 'l. ^SrJISii; % VWSS^ f •Un*'"^' 10 to conyict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact..............." 21.In the present case, Ku-Shyarnbati (PW-2) is also a reiative witness ond daughter of the deceased, •though according to her statement the appell&".ts are aja (gnmdfathers), but the eyidence of_.relatiye wi+nesses cannot be disccr'ded only on the ground of their relations. While dealing with tha question of interested wilne^ses, the Apex Court in the 'noitter' sf &a!ip Si.-igh v. Stats of Pia'yab hss he!d that a witness is noi-moiiy to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which ar'e I'kely to be tainted. Para 26 of •Hie said judgment reads os under!- 26. A wit^ess is fiorF"a!lv to bei.coi^sidsred i?ideQsnd€?!ntu"less he or she SDrinas from source^ whichar-e llkelv to be tdinted and that usualiy means unless ^he witness has cause, such as enmity aga'nst the accused, to wish to impl'cate hirn falsely. Ordinarily, a ciose reiative wc^uld be the last to screen the reai cuiprit tind faiseiy impiicatte an innocent per-son. It is true, whe" feeling< ruri high and there is personal cause for enntity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge uiong with the guiify, but foundation must be !aid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from beina a foundation is often asure guanmtee of truth" 22.As held by the Apex Court in the ma^er of Mohabbat and Ors.v. State cf M.P. , rsiationship is rict ground to affsct c-adibi!ity of wi-tness, foundatwn has to be !aid if plec of false implicction is raised. Para 7 of the scid judgrnent reads as under, "7. Mere'y because •rtie eye-witnesses ttfe family membsrs their evidence connot oer se be discarded. When 1+iere is aiiegatiori of intet'estedness, the same has to be estdblished. M^e stQ.teiriTient thrtt bsl"Q reistiyes of the decsosed they ar'e likely to falsety jmplicate the|accused connot be a oround to discard the evidence which is ti-j'herwise cogeni ancl crpdible. We shcl! also deal witl^ sthe contention regarding interestedness of the wifrnesses tor furtherino the prosecution version. Relatior^ship is not a factor to ^iffect credibilily of a witness. It \-'! -°(1954^:l SCR 145 \ .720~GOAIK SCW 1486 is more often than not !that a 11 relation would not conceal actualculprit and mcke aSlegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a carefu! opp'-oach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is coaent and credible." 23-The defence has also submitted that eyidence of Ku.Shyambati (PW-2) is full of omissions <snd contradictions. -Admittedly, parn 4 of her eyidence revec'ls thot she c^iife to h^r* house and inforlned her fathsr thcit somebody has kil!ed her mother, but in paras 1, 3 and 6 of her eyidence, she has specifica'ly deposed that the appellants cre the persons who have cissau'.ted her niother* bv drrow shot Qnd oxe whl!®shs ul?cls oioinQ with her n^ollier to th€r^arket- -She is awitness c^sd about 19 yectrs^ rssident of dense forest and rustic villager. Her ev'dence reveals •riiat she has clear'!y deposed that the flppeltants have caused injuries to her m.other. 24-Zp 1^hs iight of the (iforesci'd !sgex! proposition5 relatlng to re!ative witnsssss cnd solitsrv witnessss. ifi we sxQniincd the ev'dspce of Ku.Shyambati (PW-2), it is clear that she was going with her mother' to mnrket for se!!in9 dry f'sh. Botfi the loppellonts were present in hidden iition i" the field a"d they assaulted her mo+her' by arrow shot ond axe. She rushed to her houss ond nQrr'sted the ir*c>dsnt to hsr father'- Thereafter, her" fa+her went to police statio" ond lodged the P-I-R. (Ex-P/1). Her ?vidence is corroborated by contents of the F-I-R- (Ex.P/1). Presencs of Qrrow WGS ws!! corroborcttsd by the Jn^usst repor*t Ex-P/2. Four* QFFOWS wsrs found over ths body of dsc€<lsed SonflcilL Ppesencs of Ky-Shyantbati (PW-2) at the tin'e of incident was naturat, shs has not exaggerated the'story and her eyidence satisfies the aforesaid test inspires cbr'fiden'se csnd trus+worthy. j •t . •*<^ 25.0efence wltnesses Suklu (&W-1) amd K^u (&W-2) who haye deposed that bbtii 'ltie aoDe!!c"fits wers Drssent in '^h&ir in-laws house of) ths dots of >"cider!t. but in their* cross-exQt"ninclttori has inter'r'oaated the aoDel!cui+s Thei -s-=h they haye adn'it+ed that the Dolics r" eviderice are not sufficie"t for »:.c|®<1 :sf::'.,y ?/- 12 drawing inferencs that on the date of inciderit, the appellcmts were not present on the spot- 26.As regards the motive is concerned, i" case of direct eyidence motive !o<^$ its int&or'toncs. ey^h otherwise, ?"otiye on!y oiids in criti^inolity ctnd ceai be inferred on the basis of "ature of injury, kind of weapon used, part of 'tt's body sffsctsd QB^.d o'titsr sintiiQp circumstQrscffS. 27.^-fter appreciating the evidence available on record, tearned Fifst .Addltional Sss.sions Judge has conyicted the csppel'ants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penn! Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life- The eyidence of Ku.Shyan'bcti (PW-2) is sufficient for drawing inference that bo1+! 1+i.e appellc"its haye jointty nssaulted the deceased Somar'i <ind caused fata! in iuriels to her. 1 1 28.0n close scruti"y of the evidencs, we do not find any iHegality or infir'n'ity i" the judgment impugned. The qipeals being dewid of merit are iiable to ( be disrn'ssed cuid ore dismissed accor'din9!y. The oppeDants are on bnil. They are dir'ected to surrender themselves immediQtely before 1+ie Chief •Judicia! AA,a9is+rate, Jcgdalpur for ser'ving the r'emaining sentence imposed upon the"". Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge —.—.——1-^ r 1 1 ! ii.': liil^ i