JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The appellant was the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu bearing Sessions Case No. 90/96 (133/96). Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 22, 1997 convicted and sentenced the appellant Under Section 302 IPC to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months.
2. It is the prosecution case that on October 30, 1995 Ganpat Ram (now deceased) had gone to his field along with the appellant. Banarsi Devi, wife of Ganpat Ram, also joined them after some time with lunch box. Around 11-12 noon after the appellant ate his lunch, Ganpat Ram directed him to thresh Bazra while Banarsi Devi was asked to perform another agriculture work, for which Banarsi Devi had to go at a distance. On her return Banarsi Devi saw the appellant inflicting blows with Gandasi on the person of Ganpat Ram who died at the spot. She made hue and cry and in the meanwhile appellant fled away. Banarsi Devi narrated the incident to Mahaveer Singh who lodged the report with the police Station Mandawa. A case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 32 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
3. A look at the post mortem report (Ex. P-11) reveals that deceased Ganpat Ram had sustained following ante mortem injuries:-
“1. 10cm x 2-l/2 cm x upto bony surface on occipital region.
2. 6 x 3 x 7 cms right temporal region to cutting through middle site of right ear.
3. 9 x 3 x 7 cms parietal region of right side.
4. 9 x 3 x 3 cms Right sub mandi-bular area cutting right side of mandible (lower edge).
5. 4 x 2-1/2 x l-l/2 cms Right side of neck 5 x 3 x l-l/2 cms Right side of neck.
6 Cms x 3-l/2 cm x 3 cm Right side of neck.
Cutting through skin fascia right jugular vein & external also cutting right steno clavicular muscle at clavicular end.”
According to Dr. Bal Krishna Panwar (PW.8) the cause of death was head injury with intracranial haemorrhage and excessive blood loss from large incised wounds. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. Banarsi Devi (PW.9), who is the sole eye witness of the incident, in her deposition stated that on the fateful day her husband Ganpat Ram and appellant had been to the field to look after Bazra crop. After some time she had also joined them and served food to appellant. After the appellant ate his food, Ganpat Ram directed him to thresh Bazra. She was also asked to go at a short distance to perform agriculture work. Ganpat Ram then started eating chapatis. After a while she saw appellant inflicting gandasi blows on the neck, head and other parts of body of Ganpat Ram. She made hue and cry and in the meanwhile the appellant fled away. She then informed Bhagwana Ram about the incident who lodged the report with the police.
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that presence of Banarsi Devi at the time of incident was highly unnatural. Her conduct in not making any attempt to rescue her husband goes to show that she was telling lies, Testimony of Banarsi Devi was criticised from different angles. We were taken through the material on record and attempt was made to pursuade us not to place any reliance on her testimony. We find ourselves unable to agree with these submissions. The reasons are:-
(i) After furnishing information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the appellant led to the police officer and pointed out the place whore Gandasi stained with blood was found hidden. This fact has been cogently established vide memos Ex. P-24 and Ex.P-25.
(ii) FSL report (Ex.P-32) discloses that blood found on Gandasi was of group ‘B’ whereas blood group of the deceased was also of group ‘B’.
(iii) Immediately after the incident, appellant absconded and could be arrested after about 10 months.
(iv) From the statement of Banarsi Devi it appears that incident had taken place while Ganpat Ram was eating lunch and the post mortem report of Ganpat Ram reveals that undigested food was found in his stomach.
(v) Statement of Banarsi Devi could not be shattered and only a few questions were asked in her cross examination.
6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was five hours unexplained delay in lodging the report which creates doubt in the prosecution story. We find no merit in the contention. In the FIR itself informant Mahavir Singh (PW. 1) stated that the information about the incident was communicated to the son of the deceased who was working at khetri project. Informant thereafter waited for the son of the deceased, when he did not arrive, report was lodged.
7. We find the presence of Banarsi Devi at the time of incident highly natural. After her husband left for the field very early she had gone to the field for the purpose of providing food to her husband. There is nothing unusual for a wife to go to the field with the food for her husband.
8. It is well settled that for weighing evidence and drawing inferences from it, there can be no canon. Each case presents its own peculiarities and common sense must be brought to bear upon the facts elicited in every case which the court has to weigh and decide. Neither the Evidence Act nor any other Act lays down any law governing the question which statement of a witness should be believed or should not be believed. The question depends upon so many circumstances that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast Rules. With regard to the numerical strength, the general Rule is that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any act. Evidence is to be weighted and not counted. The direct evidence of one witness if believed by the court is sufficient for the proof of a fact. The credibility does not depend on numbers of witness. The testimony of a single witness, no matter what the issue or who the person, may legally suffice as evidence upon which the court may find a verdict. In appreciating the evidence against the accused the prime duty of a court is firstly to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible, that the witnesses are credible and have no interest in implicating him or have ulterior motive. Generally oral testimony can be classified into three categories, i.e. (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Where the evidence of witnesses is backed by medical evidence, conjectural alternatives cannot be sub-stituted in place of accepted evidence of those who actually saw the incident. On examining the evidence of Banarsi Devi from the point of view of trustworthiness we find element of truth in it.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the prosecution could not establish the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased. We do not find any substance in this contention also. It is borne out from the record that few days prior to the incident the appellant used lo misbehave with his parents and on knowing this fact the deceased scolded appellant and gave a slap on his face. It is equally well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in the mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same, In the case on hand where the testimony of Banarsi Devi against the appellant is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance.
10. For these reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.