- (1.) This is an appeal filed by Mureed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, dated 31st May, 1975 by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months.
(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant was as follows, Mst. Singar is the step daughter of appellant Mureed. She was about 25 years of age. A few months before the incident Mureed took Rs. 2200/- from Sanang who was an old man and married Singar to Sarang. Mureed then tried to pressurise Singar to leave Singar refused and went to her husband at Binjsar. Mureed appellant threatened to kill Sarang, 7 or 8 days before the Diwali of 1973 Mst. Singar, her husband Sarang and Beejla were in their field. Singar and Beejla were cutting the crop and Sarang was sitting in the field. At about mid-day Mureed came there and gave 'Dhariya' below to the head of Sarang, Mureed further gave some more 'Dhariya' blows to Sarang. Singar and Beejla tried to intervene but they were threatened by appellant Mureed. Sarang succumbed to his escape from the scene of incident. The handle of 'Dhariya' was broken. A piece of the handle was left at the scene of incident and 'Dhariya' was taken away by Mureed. Beejla then went to the house Aeedan and informed him of the incident in the presence of Taru son of Sarang. Beejla then requested Aeedan to make a report in the police. Immediately Aeedan proceeded to police station Chotan on a camel and made an oral report Ex. P. 1 at 9-30 p. m. Beejla at the same time also informed of the incident to PW 5 Gaji. Police registered the case. Head Constable PW 15 Lal Singh of police station Chotan reached the scene of incident on the next day and inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 15. He also saw the dead body of Sarang and prepared 'Furd Surat Hall Lash' Ex. P. 3. He seized and sealed blood stained clothes of deceased Sarang vide Ex. P. 4, He seized and sealed a piece of the broken handle of 'Dhariya' also from the place of incident. The Post-mortem examination of the dead body of Sarang was conducted by Dr. Mahendermal Bhandari who found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1/2" on occipital region. 2. Incised wound 8" x 1" x 1/2" on occipital and left parietal region extending upto left ear. 3. Incised wound 3" x 1" x 1/2" on left temporal region. 4. Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1/2" at the junction of occipital and left temporal bone. 5. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right frontal region. 6. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right thumb. 7. Lacerated wound 2"x 1/2" x 1/2" on right fore-arm 4" above wrist joint. 8. Incised wound 3" x 1" on the left side of lower back near vertebral column. 9. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" x 1" on the left deltoid region exposing bone. Fractures : 1. Fracture of frontal bont. 2. Fracture of left temporal bone. 3. Fracture of left parietal bone. 4. Fracture of occipital bone. 5. Fracture of left humerus at its upper ⅓rd. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries could be caused by a 'Dhariya' and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Barmer. Shri M. C. Purohit, Munsif Magistrate, Barmer conducted the committed enquiry and examined Mst. Singar and took down her statement Ex. P. 13. The statement was recorded in the presence of appellant Mureed who also cross examined Mst. Singar. The learned Magistrate, upon finding a primafacie case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the appellant to the court of Session Balotra. It further appears that before Singar and Beejla could be examined, during the trial, they left for Pakistan. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that Mst. Singar had gone to Pakistan in May, 1974 and did not return from there. Pakistan is a foreign country and it was not possible for the prosecution to produce Mst. Singar for her statement in the court. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, held that the statement of Mst. Singar recorded by the Commuting Magistrate during commital enquiry was admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act and so he brought it on the record of the trail. This statement Ex. P. 13. The learned Sessions Judge believed the testimony of Mst. Singar and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. The appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal.
(3.) We have carefully perused the entire record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. It has been contended before us for the appellant that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt because the sole testimony of Mst. Singar was insufficient to bring home the guilt in the absence of any corroborative evidence whatsoever. More so, because Mst. Singar was not examined during the trial. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that even the sole testimony of a single witness is sufficient to convict the accused if the witness is found to be of sterling worth. Mst. Singar had no reason to falsely implicate her step father and her presence at the scene of incident was most probable. The testimony of Mst. Singar is further corroborated by some facts.;