JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellants Mahendra Singh and Buwa Singh have filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 31-10-1974, whereby the appellant, Mahendra Singh, has been convicted under section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and the appellant Ruwa Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Mohan Singh son of Kaka Singh lodged a First Information Report Ex. P/1 on 21-6-1973 at 1.30 a.m. at the Police Station, Talera, district Bundi alleging therein that at about 9.00 p.m. on 20-6-1973, Harbans Singh has been murdered. He further alleged that on 20-6-1973, at about 11.00 a.m. he and Harbans Singh left for village Prempuria for purchasing a bullock. When he and Harbans Singh reached near the village Sawalpura Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh, resident of village Kankardoli, met them there. He told them that the betrothal ceremonies of the sons of Banta Singh & Mahendra Singh are taking place today, and therefore he persuaded both of them to accompany him to the house of Banta Singh. At the house of Banta Singh, Dilip Singh and Kashmira Singh also met there. At about 8.00 p.m. when the other persons who assembled there, had already taken their meals, Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh sat down to take their meals. Buwa Singh came there and started taking meals in the same plate. Buwa Singh was requested not to take his meals in the same plate, but he insisted which resulted in a scuffle. Buwa Singh went inside the house and brought a "dantar" and attacked Harbans Singh on his head. It is further contended that Buwa Singh gave 2-3 more strokes with the ' dantar", and thereafter Mahendra Singh fired four rounds from his revolver and took the "dantar" from Buwa Singh and attacked Harbans Singh on his back. Harbans Singh died on the spot. It is further alleged that Mohan Singh along with Dilip Singh and Kashmira Singh went away from this place for safety. Harbans Singh died on the spot. It is further alleged that Mohan Singh along with Dilip Singh and Kashmira Singh went away from this place for safety. It was further alleged that they saw Mahendra Singh son of Mangal Singh, Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh, Buwa Singh son of Bhola Singh & Milkha Singh carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot. It was also alleged that Mahendra Singh and Buwa Singh have murdered Harbans Singh because both of them wanted to take revenge from Harbans Singh for the murder of Makhan Singh. It was also said that Makhan Singh was murdered 2-3 years ago by Harbans Singh and Gajjan Singh. After investigation Buwa Singh and Mahendra Singh were tried for the offences under sections 302 and 201, IPC. Accused Milkha Singh and Mahendra Singh son of Mangal Singh were tried for the offence under section 201, IPC. 3. PW/1 Mohan Singh stated that he was going along with Harbans Singh for purchasing a bullock. Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh met them on the way and persuaded them to go to the house of Banta Singh as the betrothal ceremonies of the sons of Banta Singh and Mahendra Singh were going to take place. Both of them wanted to go for purchasing the bullock in the after-noon, but they were pursuaded by the accused persons. At about 8-9 p.m. when Mohan Singh and Harbans Singh started taking meals Buwa Singh came and joined them in their plate. Buwa Singh was requested not to take his meals in the same plate, but he insisted which resulted in a scuffle. When Mohan Singh wanted to go away Mahendra Singh and Buva Singh both of them pulled him down. Harbans Singh intervened and therefore, Buwa Singh caught hold of Harbans Singh by his hair and pulled him down. Later on, Buwa Singh went to the house of Banta Singh and brought a `dantar'. Mahendra Singh caught hold of Mohan Singh, while Buwa Singh dealt a blow on the head of Harbans Singh with the "dantar". Soon after Buwa Singh dealt another blow with the "dantar" on the head of Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh fell down. Thereafter Mahendra Singh left Mohan Singh and took the "dantar" from Buwa Singh. Mahendra Singh then gave a number of strokes by the "dantar" on the back of Harbans Singh. Soon after Buwa Singh dealt another blow with the "dantar" on the head of Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh fell down. Thereafter Mahendra Singh left Mohan Singh and took the "dantar" from Buwa Singh. Mahendra Singh then gave a number of strokes by the "dantar" on the back of Harbans Singh. Dilip Singh and Kashmir Singh wanted to intervene, but Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh fired four rounds from his revolver as a result of which Mohan Singh, Dilip Singh and Kashmir Singh went away from there for safety. Then at about 11.00 p.m., they saw Buwa Singh, Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh, Mahendra Singh son of Mangal Singh and Milkha Singh carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot. All the four accused persons were armed with sword. Mahendra Singh was putting on a "tehmat", which was stained with blood. Mohan Singh gave information to the police on the basis of which the dead body of Harbans Singh was found out. The head was completely chopped off from the dead body. The head of Harbans Singh was also recovered near the Nairwa Road. The dead body of Harbans Singh was recovered from the field of Mahendra Sirgh Jat. At the time of incident Dilip Singh and Kashmir Singh were standing at a distance of 30-40 paces. 4. PW 2 Dayal Singh stated that Makhan Singh was murdered about three years ago. Harbans Singh and Gajjan Sirgh were arrested in that murder case but Harhans Singh and Gajjan Singh were later on acquitted. On that night Mohan Singh came to Dayal Singh at about 10 p.m. and narrated to him the story. Mohan Singh had apprehended that the dead body of Harbans Singh would be disposed of and so he accompanied Mohan Singh along with Birsa Singh and went towards that side. They saw Buwa Singh, Mahendra Singh s/o Sohan Singh, Mahender Singh s/o Mangal Singh and Milkha Singh carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot. Seeing this, he went to the police station along with Mohan Singh and got a report lodged by Mohan Singh. The SHO recovered the Tehmat of Mahendra Singh as it was stained with blood. 5. PW/3 Birsa Singh is the person who accompanied Mohan Singh and Dilip Singh and saw that the accused persons were carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot. 6. The SHO recovered the Tehmat of Mahendra Singh as it was stained with blood. 5. PW/3 Birsa Singh is the person who accompanied Mohan Singh and Dilip Singh and saw that the accused persons were carrying the dead body of Harbans Singh on a cot. 6. PW/4 Kashmir Singh stated Dayal Singh came at about midnight and wakened him and his brothers Dilip Singh and Dayal Singh took out tractor as they had to lodge a report with the police station, Talera. This witness was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. 7. PW/5 Ajit Singh is the witness regarding the recovery of the dead body. 8. PW/6 is Dr. Sushil Kumar Gautam. He had performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Harbans Singh. He found the following injuries on his person:- 1. Head and neck completely chopped off at survical No. 1 probably with sharp weapon. 2. Incised wounds two size 3" x 1" x1" obliquely placed at lower one third of left leg cutting shaft of tibia. Grievous by sharp object. 3. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/2" on right thoric region back. 4. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" horizontally placed on left scapular region back. Simple sharp. Bones and joints. (1) No. 1 is cutting through survical No. 1. (2) Left tibia fractured by 1 to 2. Head & neck not brought with body. 9. Presence of post-mortem staining on back and other regions of decomposition, it is detected that person has died within 24 hours of post-mortem. 10. No. 1 mentioned in Col No. 5 is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 11. Skull of human being was brought to him on 24/6/73. Only skull and the vertibrae brought. Probable age 55 years. Time since death about five days. It was without mandible. No soft tissues and stains present. It hears the following injuries. Cut fracture 4" x 1/4" horizontally placed with suture line left half of occipital region. 12. Brain was in liquefied mass in membranes. Base of skull-Linear fracture of orbital plate of right frontal bone and crack fracture of petrom part of right temporal bone. 13. Vertibrae upto servical No. 2 present with skull. 14. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries on the dead body of Harbans Singh were ante-mortem. 12. Brain was in liquefied mass in membranes. Base of skull-Linear fracture of orbital plate of right frontal bone and crack fracture of petrom part of right temporal bone. 13. Vertibrae upto servical No. 2 present with skull. 14. In the opinion of the Doctor all the injuries on the dead body of Harbans Singh were ante-mortem. He further stated that the injuries 2 and 3 on the skull are crack fractures and could not be caused by a sharp weapon. 15. PW/7 Nafaj Babu is the police constable, who had taken the articles for analysis. 16. PW/8 Dilip Singh stated that on the day when Harbans Singh was murdered the betrothal ceremonies took place. At about mid-night Dayal Singh informed him that Harbans Singh has been murdered. He accompanied Dayal Singh to the Police Station. This witness was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. 17. PW/9 Mahendra Singh son of Tara Singh stated that he knew the deceased, Harbans Singh. The S.H.O. had come to his village and had called him. The dead body of Harbans Singh was recovered from the field. The head was completely chopped off from the dead body. The recovery memos were prepared in his presence, and he had signed them. 18. PW/10 Dhanna Singh stated that he had gone to catch a bus on the bank of Mangali river. There the SHO met him. The SHO asked him to accompany him. The SHO recovered a cot at the instance of the accused. This witness was also declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. 19. PW/11 Chandra Singh was the SHO at the Police Station Hindoli on 25-9-1970. He had registered the case regarding the murder of Makhan Singh against Harbans Singh and Gajjan Singh. 20. PW/12 Sobhag Singh has stated that Buwa Singh had taken out a cot from near a `babul'. One "upla" of the cot was missing. 21. PW/13 Ram Chandra son of Bhuraji is also a recovery witness regarding the dead body of Harbans Singh. PW/14 Ram Chandra son of Banshi Das stated that the recovery of the "upla" was made in his presence.22-23. PW/15 Roop Kishore was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the time when the murder of Harbans Singh took place. Buwa Singh had given information to him regarding the recovery' of "upla" vide Ex. P/22. PW/14 Ram Chandra son of Banshi Das stated that the recovery of the "upla" was made in his presence.22-23. PW/15 Roop Kishore was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the time when the murder of Harbans Singh took place. Buwa Singh had given information to him regarding the recovery' of "upla" vide Ex. P/22. Mahendra Singh had given information regarding the "pagari" and hair of the deceased vide Ex. P/23. The information which was given by Buwa Singh was correct, but the information given by Mahendra Singh was not correct.24. PW/16 Ram Kishore Mehrish is the SHO who conducted the euquiry. He found blood stained earth at the house of Mahendra Singh. The blood stained earth was recovered by Ex. P/9. Vide Ex. P/4 the blood-stained `tehmat' of Mahendra Singh was also recovered. Mahendra Singh gave him information leading to the recovery of the dead body of Harbans Singh vide Ex. P/W 5. The dead body of Harbans Singh was found in the fields of Maherdra Singh Jat. On, a search having been made the head of the deceased, Harbans Singh, was found on June 25, 1973 near the Margali river. The head was taken into possession vide Ex. P/12.25. The statements of Mahendra Singh and Buwa Singh were recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC, 1973 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 24-8-1974.26. DM/1 Krishna Behari is the Headmaster, Middle School, Namana, and has only stated regarding the date of birth of Milkha Singh.27. DW/2 Deo Chand was posted as Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 2, Bundi on 19/8/1973. He had recorded the statement of Mohan Singh son of Kaka Singh under Section 164, Cr.PC.28. DW/3 Man Singh has stated that he had gone to attend the betrothal ceremony at the hour of Mohan Singh. He did not see Buwa Singh and Mohan Singh s/o Sohan Singh, Harbans Singh and Mohan Singh in the betrothal ceremony.29. DW/4 Dr. S.K Sharma had examined Milkha Singh with respect to his age. In the opinion of the witness the age of Milkha Singh was about 17 years.30. DW/5 Gajjan Singh stated that at the betrothal ceremony he acted as the Pandit (Granthi). He did not see Mohan Singh in the betrothal ceremony. Accused Buwa Singh is not known to him.31. S.K Sharma had examined Milkha Singh with respect to his age. In the opinion of the witness the age of Milkha Singh was about 17 years.30. DW/5 Gajjan Singh stated that at the betrothal ceremony he acted as the Pandit (Granthi). He did not see Mohan Singh in the betrothal ceremony. Accused Buwa Singh is not known to him.31. On behalf of the accused-appellants, it was contended that Mohan Singh is the only eye-witness in the case, and his statement has been found to be unreliable. Reliance was placed on Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 Cr. LR (SC) 14 , wherein it was held that where an accused is going to lose his life in a serious charge of murder, it is only necessary that the Court should be circumspect and closely scrutinise the evident to come to an unhesitating conclusion that that the eye-witness on whose testimony the conviction is based is absolutely reliable. Where the sole witness on whose testimony the conviction was based had himself given the FIR and there were serious departures in his evidence from the version given in the FIR & the evidence was contradicted by the medical evidence. It was held that the evidence of the medical witnesses has not been considered. Reliance was placed on Badri v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 Cr. LR (SC) 678 , wherein it was held that where the only eye-witness is modulating his evidence to suit the prosecution story, the accused deserved to be acquitted.32. From the evidence on record, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that Buwa Singh and Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh committed the murder of Harbans Singh. The statement of Mohan Singh is dependable, and the other circumstantial evidence has corroborated his version. It is clearly established that Buwa Singh dealt ` dantar" blows on the head of Harbans Singh as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. Mahendra Singh initially caught hold of Mohan Singh so that Mohan Singh could not get Harbans Singh rescued from the murderous assault of Buwa Singh. Later on, Mahendra Singh also dealt "dantar" blows on Harbans Singh.33. Having minutely examined the prosecution evidence we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succceded in bringing the guilt home to the accused Buwa Singh under Section 302, IPC and Mahendrasingh son of Sohan Singh under Section 302/34, IPC. Later on, Mahendra Singh also dealt "dantar" blows on Harbans Singh.33. Having minutely examined the prosecution evidence we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succceded in bringing the guilt home to the accused Buwa Singh under Section 302, IPC and Mahendrasingh son of Sohan Singh under Section 302/34, IPC. In the post-mortem report Ex.P/15 Dr. S.K Gautam PW/6 has clearly stated that injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The testimony of witnesses Mohan Singh PW/l, Kashmir Singh PW/2 and Dilip Singh PW/8 clearly establishes the guilt of the accused-appellants. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has not succeeded in making out a case whereby it can be said that the statements of Mohan Singh, Kashmir Singh and Dilip Singh should not be believed. In our considered opinion, Mohan Singh is a dependable eye-witness and the conviction of the accused-appellants could be sustained even on his sole testimony though the statements of Kashmir Singh and Dilip Singh are there to corroborate his statement.34. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******