JUDGMENT
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 7/99 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 1PC and sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-
PW8 Himmat Singh gave a written report Ex.P/15 on 26.10.1998 at about 11.45 AM in the Government Hospital, Bilara to PW21 Chandan Singh, who was at that time SHO, Police Station Bilara stating inter-alia that on 26.10.1998 in the morning at about 7.30-7.45 AM, his father Jogdan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) left the well for catching the bus for going to School and after going to some distance from the well, deceased asked his son PW8 Himmat Singh to follow him upto the road and upon this, PW8 Himmat Singh followed his father-deceased. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/15 that deceased asked PW8 Himmat Singh to follow him because some persons of Raikon-ki- dhani had enmity with the deceased, It was further stated in the report Ex.P/15 that PW8 Himmat Singh was following his father- deceased at a distance of about 100 foot and as soon as deceased reached near the electric poles, both the accused appellants Hadmana Ram and Shaitan Ram having lathies in their hands came out from the bushes and they started beating deceased. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/15 that the accused appellant Hadmana Ram gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased from back side, as a result of which, deceased fell down on the earth and thereafter, both the accused appellants gave several lathi blows on the person of the deceased and when PW8 Himmat Singh tried to reach near the deceased, the accused appellant Hadmana Ram asked him that in case he tried to come there, he would also be killed and upon this, because of fear, PW8 Himmat Singh went back to his well and from where, he took his brothers PW18 Ummed Singh and PW17 Bheem Singh and by the time when they reached on the spot, the accused appellants had already run away from the place of occurrence and they found their father-deceased in an injured condition and thereafter, PW8 Himmat Singh asked his brother PW17 Bheem Singh to call Mahadev (PW12) for bringing his tractor so that deceased could be taken to the Government Hospital, Bilara. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/15 that deceased received so many injuries and before reaching Government Hospital, Bilara, deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital.
The further case of the prosecution is that the report Ex.P/15 was sent by PW21 Chandan Singh with PW10 Nanda Ram for registering the case in the Police Station Bilara and thereafter, regular FIR Ex.P/18 was chalked out in the Police Station Bilara by PW10 Nanda Ram and investigation was started by PW21 Chandan Singh.
During investigation, site plan Ex.P/5 and site description memo Ex.P/4 were got prepared by PW21 Chandan Singh. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW9 Dr. Bheemdan and the post mortem report is Ex.P/17, which shows that deceased received as many as 25 injuries on his body and it was opined that deceased died due to shock due to multiple injuries. The accused appellants Hadmana Ram and Shaitan Ram were got arrested by PW21 Chandan Singh through arrest memos Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/14 respectively.
After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.
On 17.2.1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants. They denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused appellants.
After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur through impugned judgment and order dated 19.2.2000, after placing reliance on the sole testimony of PW8 Himmat Singh, who is son of the deceased, convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced both of them in the manner as stated above.
Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, the accused appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. In this appeal, the main contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellants are as follows:-
(i) That as per the prosecution case, the only eye witness of the alleged occurrence is PW8 Himmat Singh, who is son of the deceased and since he is a highly interested and close relative witness being son of the deceased, therefore, no reliance should have been placed on his statement.
(ii) That actually, PW8 Himmat Singh was not an eye witness and the report Ex.P/15 was an after thought and it was a concocted and fabricated document.
(iii) That since there was enmity between the accused appellants and the deceased, therefore, the accused appellants have been falsely implicated by PW8 Himmat Singh.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned judgment and order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
6. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence of this case has to be seen.
7. PW9 Bheemdan in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 26.10.1998 he was Senior Medical Officer in the Government Hospital, Bilara and on that day at about 2.15 PM, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries of his foody: –
1. Fracture with fracture deformity left forearm just above wrist joint, forearm curved & dropped due to fracture deformity.
2. Fracture with fracture deformity present left arm, left humerous fractured just with arm deformed.
3. Lacerated wound 2cm x lcm x l/2cm behind left elbow.
4. Lacerated wound lcm x lcm x lcm posterior side of left arm above left elbow.
5. Lacerated wound 3cm x lcm x l/2cm left thigh front side.
6. Fracture deformity and thigh flexed and deformed lower l/3rd of left thigh.
7. Lacerated wound 3cm x l/2cm x l/2cm left leg front side below knee.
8. Lacerated wound 1.5cm x lcm x l/2cm just below left knee.
9. Abrasion 3cm x l/2cm Rt. leg lower l/3rd front side.
10. Abrasion lcm x lcm Rt. knee.
11. Bruise 5cm x 3cm Rt. thigh lower l/3rd front side.
12. Bruise 10cm x 5cm Rt. thigh lower l/3rd front side.
13. Lacerated wound 2cm x l/2cm x l/2cm dorsal side of right wrist joint.
14. Lacerated wound 2cm x l/2cm x l/2cm middle of left forearm.
15. Abrasion lcm x l/2cm just above right wrist joint.
16. Fracture deformity Rt. forearm lower l/3rd with fracture Rt. radius and ulna.
17. Fracture deformity Rt. arm middle half with fracture Rt. numerous.
18. Multiple bruises about 7-8 in number overlapping each other with blackish colour on Rt. arm and Rt. shoulder.
19. Haemotama with swelling 8cm x 8cm Rt. shoulder anterior part.
20. Bruise 30cm x 2cm obliquely over back of chest with blackish colour.
21. Bruise 6cm x 3cm left intra scapular region.
22. Bruise 6cm x 3cm just below left scapular region.
23. Bruise 12cm x 3cm left supra scapular region.
24. Bruise multiple on Rt. scapular region, black in colour with overlapping each other.
25. Lacerated wound 3cm x lcm x 1/2cm on occipital region scalp.
He has further stated that liver of the deceased was ruptured and the injuries received by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to multiple injuries. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/17.
8. Thus, from the statement of PWS) Dr. Bheemdan, it is very much clear that deceased died because of shock due to multiple injuries and therefore, death of the deceased was not natural one and it was homicidal.
9. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that there is no dispute on the point that PW8 Himmat Singh, who lodged the report Ex.P/15, is the son of the deceased and there is also no dispute on the point that PW17 Bheem Singh and PW18 Ummed Singh are also the sons of the deceased and brothers of PW8 Himmat Singh and there is also no dispute on the point that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused appellants.
10. The main case as put forward by PW8 Himmat Singh in his report Ex.P/15, which was given by him to PW21 Chandan Singh on 26.10.1998 at about 11.45 AM, was that on that day at about 7.30- 7.45 AM, when his father-deceased left the well for catching the bus for going to school, he was asked to follow his father- deceased because some persons of Raikon-ki-dhani had enmity with his father-deceased and upon this, he followed his father-deceased from a distance of about 100 foot and when deceased reached near the electric poles, both the accused appellants Hadmana Ram and Shaitan Ram having lathies in their hands came out from the bushes and the accused appellant Hadmana Ram gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased from back side, as a result of which, deceased fell down on the earth and thereafter, both the accused appellants gave lathi blows on the person of the deceased and when he tried to reach near the deceased, the accused appellant Hadmana Ram told him that in case he tried to come there, he would also be killed and upon this, because of fear, he went back to his well and from where, he took his brothers PW18 Ummed Singh and PW17 Bheem Singh and when they reached on the spot, the accused appellants had run away from the place of occurrence and they found their father-deceased in an injured condition and deceased was having so many injuries and thereafter, he asked his brother PW17 Bheem Singh to call Mahadev (PW12) for bringing tractor for taking the deceased to Government Hospital, Bilara and before reaching the Govern- ment Hospital, Bilara, deceased died on the way.
11. Since the sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh is a close relative being son of the deceased, therefore, before examining his statement, something should be said about the position of law with respect of appreciation of evidence of interested witness, related witness and solitary witness.
12. A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an ‘interested witness’, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1).
13. The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court. For that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujrat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel (2), may be seen.
14. It is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness, but their evidence should be subjected to a close scrutiny. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses. Evidence of interested witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. There is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. Simply because an eye witness happens to be the son of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable.
15. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. For that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Slate of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki (3), may be seen.
16. Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (4).
Quality not quantity of evidence material
17. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act enshrines the well recognized maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed not counted”. The matter thus depends upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of evidence even of a single witness whose testimony has either to be accepted or rejected. 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 the accused may be established by 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. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivalu Thevar v. State of Madras (5), Maqsoodan v. State of UP (6), Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (7), Praveen v. State of Haryana (8), and Balo Yadav v. State of Bihar (9), ma be referred to.
18. Instate of UP v. Hakim Singh (10), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that law does not require a plurality of witnesses. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, provided the evidence of the witness is trustworthy. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP (11), has held that testimony of a solitary witness can be acted upon, if entirely reliable and corroboration is required only in case of doubt or suspicion.
20. It is settled law that corroboration is not rule of law, but one of caution as an assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of the testimony of solitary witness. The occasion for the presence at the time of occurrence, opportunity to witness the crime, the normal conduct of the witness to the victim, his predisposition towards the accused, are some of the circumstances to be kept in view to weight and accept the ocular evidence of a witness. It is not the quantum of the evidence but its quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance to the court for acceptance. For that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mikiyath Singh v. State of Punjab (12), may be referred to.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in Sadhu Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (13), has held that conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration. The testimony of the witness must be one, which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in the mind of the court about the truthfulness of the witness.
22. Thus, it can be concluded that:
(1) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated. One credible witness out- weigh the testimony of a number of other witness of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
23. Keeping the above principles in mind, the statement of the sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh is being examined.
24. PW8 Himmat Singh in his statement recorded in Court has supported the version given by him in his report Ex.P/15, but in cross-examination, he admits the following facts:-
(i) That it is correct to say that from the place of occurrence at a distance of about 100 foot, there was a Maliyon- ki-dhani.
(ii) That it is also correct to say that his father used to go school alone and come back alone.
(iii) That he did not intervene when his father-deceased was being beaten by the accused appellants.
(iv) That we first went to the hospital and not to the police station.
(v) That he gave report Ex.P/15 to the SHO and what was written by SHO, it was not read over to him.
(vi) That police obtained his signature on a blank paper.
(vii) That it is also correct to say that criminal case was pending against them in the Bilara Court in which the accused appellant Hadmana Ram was complainant.
(viii) That it is also correct to say that before lodging the report Ex.P/15, he did not give information to anybody about the alleged incident.
25. PW17 Bheem Singh is another witness, who is son of the deceased and brother of PW8 Himmat Singh and he was informed about the alleged incident by PW8 Himmat Singh. This witness clearly states that PW8 Himmat Singh came back to the well and informed that the accused appellants were giving beating to their father-de- ceased and thereafter, he, PW18 Ummed Singh and PW8 Himmat Singh reached on the spot and they found deceased in an injured condition and thereafter, he went to bring the tractor of Mahadev, PW12 and thereafter, deceased was taken to the Bilara Hospital in the tractor of PW12 Mahadev and before they could reach Bilara Hospital, the deceased died on the way. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that since PW8 Himmat Singh came crying, therefore, the fact that deceased was beaten by the accused appellants was known to him and his brother PW18 Ummed Singh only.
26. Similar is the statement of PW18 Ummed Singh, another son of the deceased and brother of PW8 Himmat Singh.
27. PW12 Mahadev is that witness, in whose tractor, the deceased was taken to the Bilara Hospital. This witness has stated that PW17 Bheem Singh came to him and informed that since his father-deceased had been beaten, therefore, he was asked to take his tractor to the place of occurrence so that his father- deceased could be taken to the Bilara Hospital, but the names of the assailants were not told to him by PW17 Bheem Singh and thereafter, he took the deceased to the Bilara Hospital in the tractor, but deceased died on the way. He has further stated that the accused appellants had enmity with the complainant party. This witness has been contradicted with his police statement Ex.D/1 at portion A to B where he had admitted that the names of the assailants were told to him by PW17 Bheem Singh.
28. PW21 Chandan Singh was the 10 in this case and in his statement recorded in Court, he has stated that the written report Ex.P/15 was produced before him by PW8 Himmat Singh in the hospital. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the report Ex.P/15 was got written by somebody on behalf of PW8 Himmat Singh, but the same was not written in his presence.
29. In our considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur has rightly placed reliance on the statement of eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh while convicting the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC because of the following reasons:-
(i) That in this case, the incident took place on 26.10.1998 at about 7.30-7.45 AM and the report Ex.P/15 was lodged by PW8 Himmat Singh just after the occurrence and therefore, the possibility to implicate the accused appellants falsely cannot be accepted.
(ii) That PW8 Himmat Singh has clearly stated that since the accused appellants had enmity with his father-deceased, therefore, on the relevant day, as per saying of his father- deceased, he followed him at a distance of about 100 foot and when his father-deceased reached near the electric poles, the accused appellants having lathies in their hands came out from the bushes and the accused appellant Had- mana Ram gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased from the back side, as a result of which, deceased fell down on the earth and thereafter, both the accused appellants gave beating to deceased. This fact is very well corroborated from the medical evidence as the post mortem report Ex.P/17 clearly shows that deceased received as many as 25 injuries on his body and injury No. 25 i.e. lacerated wound 3cm x lcm x l/2cm was on back occipital region scalp, as stated by Dr. Bheemdam, PW9.
Furthermore, PW8 Himmat Singh is a village man and he has stated that the accused appellant Hadmana Ram gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased from the back side and that fact is found in the statement of PW9 Dr. Bheemdan meaning thereby he saw the occur- rence with his naked eyes, otherwise this fact would have not been found in the report Ex.P/15. This circumstance alone is sufficient to treat PW8 Himmat Singh as an eye witness.
Whether a particular witness is an eye witness or not, the Court has to adhere to the following two principles, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Noorie (14):-
(i) whether it was possible for witnesses to be present, and
(ii) Whether there was anything inherently improbable or unreliable.
In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence.
In the present case, from reading the statement of PW8 Himmat Singh, his presence at the place of occurrence appears to be natural one and there was nothing on record to suggest that he was not an eye witness. Hence, the argument that PW8 Himmat Singh was not an eye witness stands rejected.
(iii) That this Court is aware that when sole eye witness is close relative of the deceased, his evidence should be scrutinized very carefully and taking this aspect into consideration, when the state- ment of sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh is examined, it appears that his statement is straight forward, reliable and trustworthy and his statement gets corroboration from the medical evidence. The de- ceased received as many as 25 injuries and PW8 Himmat Singh has clearly stated that accused appellants gave several lathi blows on the person of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that he was telling lie on this aspect.
Furthermore, the statement of PW8 Himmat Singh gets further corroboration from the statements of PW17 Bheem Singh and PW18 Ummed Singh, who are his real brothers and sons of the deceased, on the point that when he saw that his father-deceased was being severely beaten by the accused appellants; he rushed towards the well and called his brothers PW17 Bheem Singh and PW18 Ummed Singh corroborated the statement of PW8 Himmat Singh on that point.
Apart from this, the best independent evidence in this case could be of PW12 Mahadev, who was called by PW17 Bheem Singh, as per saying of PW8 Himmat Singh, for bringing tractor so that deceased could be taken to the hospital. PW12 Mahadev has, stated that PW17 Bheem Singh came and asked him to bring the tractor for taking deceased to Bilara Hospital. No doubt he has stated in Court that PW17 Bheem Singh did not mention the names of the accused appellants to him at that time, but on that point he has been contradicted with his police statement Ex.D/1 at portion A to B where he mentioned the names of the accused appellants, therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW17 Bheem Singh, PW18 Ummed Singh and PW8 Himmat Singh did not inform the names of the accused appellants to PW12 Mahadev.
(iv) That from the statement of sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh, it cannot reasonably be presumed or inferred that he was telling lie or falsely implicating the accused appellants with the commission of crime. His statement appears to be straight forward, trustworthy and reliable and fully corroborated by medical evidence as well as from the statements of PW17 Bheem Singh, PW18 Ummed Singh and to some extent from PW12 Mahadev and it does not suffer from material infirmity. Therefore, in these circumstances, if the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the statement of the sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh while convicting the accused appellants for the of- fence under section 302/34 IPC, he has committed no illegality in doing so, as from his statement, it is well proved that the accused appellants gave several lathi blows on the person of the deceased . including head, as a result of which he died.
Furthermore, no doubt PW8 Himmat Singh is a close relative being son of the deceased, but since his statement is straightforward, trustworthy and reliable and further, his evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as by the evidence of PW17 Bheem Singh, PW18 Ummed Singh and to some extent of PW12 Mahadev, there- fore, in these circumstances, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely because he happens to be the son of the deceased.
In Ramji Surjya v. State of Maharashtra (15), the Hoh’ble Supreme Court has observed that even where there is only a sole eye witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against the accused con- cerned, provided the court which hears such witness regards him as honest and truthful, but prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought from the other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness also happens to be closely related to the deceased and the accused are those against whom some motive or ill-will is suggested.
Apart from this, as a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated, provided that testimony of that single witness is found out entire reliable and in that case, there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration and for that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), may be referred to:
In the present case, the statement of sole eye witness FW8 Himmat Singh, who is close relative of deceased being son of the deceased, appears to be reliable and trustworthy and his evidence is corroborated from the medical evidence as well as from the statements of PW17 Bheem Singh, PW18 Ummed Singh and to some extent from PW12 Mahadev also. Therefore, in these circumstances, if the learned trial Judge has recorded conviction against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC on the basis of sole testimony of eye witness PW8 ‘Himmat Singh, who happens to be the son of the deceased, he has committed no illegality in doing so. Hence, the argument that it was. unsafe to base conviction of the accused appellants on the testimony of PW8 Himmat Singh stands rejected.
The learned counsel for the accused appellants has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh and Ors. (16), and he has submitted that since there was no corroboration to the statement of sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh, therefore, conviction of the accused appellants on the basis of his sole testimony was improper. In our considered opinion, that ruling would not be helpful to the accused appellants as the facts of the present case stands distinguished from the facts of that case, inasmuch as, statement of sole eye witness PW8 Himmat Singh gets corroboration from the medical evidence as well as from the state- ments of PW17 Bheem Singh, PW18 Umed Singh and to some extent from PW12 Mahadev.
(v) That on point of contradictions between the statements of PW8 Himmat Singh and PW21 Chandan Singh, who was in this case, in respect of the report Ex.P/15, it may be stated here that no doubt PW8 Himmat Singh admitted in his cross examination that he signed on blank paper and handed over the same to the police, but PW21 Chandan Singh says otherwise. Since the father of PW8 Himmat Singh died before reaching the Bilara Hospital, the fact that by whom it was written is not material in this case, but the fact is that the report whether it was written by somebody or by the police personnel, was given by PW8 Himmat Singh to PW21 Chandan Singh in the Bilara Hospital in the shape of Ex.P/15, which includes all material facts about the alleged occurrence. The contradictions between the statements of PW8 Himmat Singh and PW21 Chandan Singh in respect of report Ex.P/15 are of minor nature and thus, they are to be over- looked. Therefore, on such contradictions, it cannot be said that the report Ex.P/15 was a concocted or fabricated document and the argument in this respect stands rejected.
(vi) That no doubt there was enmity between the deceased and the accused appellants, but from the evidence on record, it does not appear that the accused appellants were falsely implicated by PW8 Himmat Singh.
Furthermore, enmity between the accused and the victim is a double-edged weapon. It may provide incentive for the crime and it may also provide reasons for falsely implicating the accused. In the pre- sent case, it cannot be reasonably inferred or presumed that the accused appellants were falsely implicated by PW8 Himmat Singh because of enmity. In this case, enmity is no ground for discarding the evidence of PW8 Himmat Singh as his evidence is reliable and trustworthy and fully corroborated by medical evidence.
(vii) That it may be stated here that the point in respect of appreciation of evidence of lower court and interference by the appellant court was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarju Prosad v. Pratap Narain (17), and following that decision in the case of Sarju Prosad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Jagdomal v. Southern Indian Education Centre (18), held that so far as the appreciation of oral testimony is concerned by the appellate Court, there are two views. One view is that the Court of appeal has undoubted duty to review the recorded evidence and to draw its own inference and conclusion. The other view is that the Court of appeal must attach due weight to the opinion of the trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and noticing their look and manners. The rule of practice which has almost the force of law is that the appellate Court does not reverse a finding of fact rested on a proper appreciation of oral evidence.
Thus, it can be concluded that opinion of trial Judge on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed except for exceptional reasons. In the present case, we see no exceptional reasons.
30. For the reasons stated above, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants stand rejected and no interference is called for with the findings of guilt and conviction recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur through impugned judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellants is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.