B.J.SHETHNA,J. - (1.) APPELLANT Prahlad Ram has challenged in this appeal the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in sessions case 'No. 14/81 dated 17.3.1982 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer one year S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default to further undergo, three months' S.I.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel Shri Singhi for the appellants first submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong in trying the case against the accused, who was juvenile offender as at the time of commission of the offence, he was only 14 years. In Support of his submission, he has pointed out that from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein according to the accused, his age was 14 years but as per the learned Sessions Judge he was 18. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raisul v. State of U.P. 1976 SCC (Cr.) 613. It was a case of an accused, who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death by the trial Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge looking at the appellant accused thought that he must not be less than 24 years of age. The High Court also on 'seeing the appellant personally took the view that the estimate age given by the learned Sessions Judge was correct. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court found that the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were not right in substituting their own estimate in regard to the age of accused and on the basis of such estimate rejected the statement of the accused regarding his age that he was below 18 years of age when the offence was committed by him. The case on hand before me is totally different. It is true that in the original statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. at one place his age is shown to be 14 but at other place his age is shown to be 18. But, it may be stated that nowhere in his statement the accused stated that he was below the age of 18 at the time when the offence was committed. Not only that, this contention was never raised before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the accused by his counsel. This contention is raised for the first time at the time of hearing of this appeal after 16 years of its admission by the learned Counsel Shri Singhi. This contention was not even raised in the memo of appeal where it was drafted in 1982. Under the circumstances, it would be difficult for this Court to accept this contention raised by the learned Counsel Shri Singhi that the order of conviction and sentence is vitiated because the accused was juvenile and he would not have been tried by the Sessions Court. At this stage one more aspect is required to be noted i.e. the blow given by knife by the accused to the injured person it was with such a great force that caused such a serious injury which according to the opinion of the Doctor, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This fact also shows that the accused would not have been 14 years when the offence was committed but he was quite matured and he must be 18 and that is why this point was obviously not raised before the trial court. Mr. Rathore, Learned P.P., could hardly object to it.
(3.) SHRI Singhi, learned Counsel then contended that the learned trial Judge was in error in convicting the accused on the sole testimony of the injured witness. He submitted that the knife was not produced by the prosecution before the Court, therefore, he submitted that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. It is true that the knife which was used in the commission of offence, was not produced but that itself would not be fatal to the prosecution in view of the clear evidence of injured Suresh Kumar, whose evidence remained unshaken in his cross examination. Nothing has come out in his cross examination, which would compel this court to dis -believe his dis -believe his evidence. He stood the test of the cross -examination made by the counsel on behalf of the accused. For basing the conviction, quality of evidence is required and not the quantity. A conviction can be made on the sole testimony of a witness if his evidence is otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable. There is no reason for the injured to falsely involve the accused by allowing the real culprit to let go. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Singhi and it is rejected.;