JUDGMENT : B.K. NARAYANA, J. 1. Heard Sri D.R. Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J. K. Upadhyay, learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Raja Ram against the judgment and order dated 30.05.1988 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in S.T. No. 337 of 1986, State Vs. Raja Ram and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 161 of 1986 under Section 302/201/120-B I.P.C., P.S. - Amaria, District-Pilibhit by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that one Prabhu Charan, Chowkidar of village Kainchu-Tanda lodged a written report at P.S. Amaria, District-Pilibhit on 24.08.1986 at 11.15 hours alleging therein that one Raja Ram, who was originally resident of village Kachhnara and had later settled in village Kainchu-Tanda, during the subsistence of his marriage with Chandrakali and during her lifetime, had kept his younger brother, Gendal's wife Smt. Lalta Devi as his concubine in the same house after the death of Gendal and accorded her the status of his wife. On 24.8.1986, in the evening, Raja Ram was going with his wife Smt. Chandrakali on his bicycle on the pathway on the bank of canal towards Chandrakali's parental village Kachhnara. While the couple crossed over the siphon lying in between the villages, Bhoorkoni and Pareva on the pathway of the said canal, Smt. Chandrakali fell into the canal and was drowned. The accused Raja Ram had thereafter returned to his village Kainchu-Tanda. One Qayum, who was resident of the same village and who was coming from the side of village Pareva, had informed him about the incident who informed the officer in-charge of P.S. Amaria about the aforesaid incident. The officer in-charge of P.S.Amaria after receiving the aforesaid information, instructed a constable to inform P.S.Jahanabad for taking necessary action in the matter as the place of occurrence fell within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Jahanabad and consequently a case was registered at P.S. Jahanabad. 4. The officer in-charge of P.S.Amaria after receiving the aforesaid information, instructed a constable to inform P.S.Jahanabad for taking necessary action in the matter as the place of occurrence fell within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Jahanabad and consequently a case was registered at P.S. Jahanabad. 4. The dead body of the deceased Chandrakali which had flown downstream in the said canal was recovered from the canal (in village Bahadurganj within the limits of P.S. Baheri, District-Bareilly) on 26.08.1986 by one S.I. Sri R.S. Tiwari of P.S. Baheri, District-Bareilly who conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report and other related papers. During the holding of inquest, the identity of the deceased was also ascertained. The postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Chandrakali was conducted at Bareilly on the same day and as per the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.5), the cause of death was stated to be drowning. The papers prepared at Bareilly were forwarded by P.S. Baheri to the S.H.O. of P.S. Jahanabad, District-Pilibhit. The Investigating Officer of the case after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against both the accused namely appellant Raja Ram and Smt. Lalta Devi. The case was committed for trial of the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pilibhit where it was registered as S.T. No. 337 of 1986, State Vs. Raja Ram and another and made over from there for trial to the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit who on the basis of material on record and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge u/s 302/201/120-B I.P.C. against the appellant Raja Ram and u/s 120-B I.P.C. simplicitor against the accused Smt. Lalta Devi. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused examined Prabhu Charan as P.W.1, Layeek Ahmad as P.W.2, Siya Ram as P.W.3, Om Prakash as P.W.4, Rajendra Prasad as P.W.5, Naresh Chandra as P.W.6, Rukam Sen as P.W.7, Smt. Premwati as P.W.8, Smt. Ram Kali as P.W.9, Budhsen as P.W.10, Sohan Lal as P.W.11 and S.I. Sri D.P. Misra as P.W.12. 6. 6. The prosecution, apart from oral evidence also adduced documentary evidence comprising of written report of the incident (Ext.Ka.1), extract of G.D. No. 31 (Ext.Ka.2), note made on the written report (Ext.Ka.3), inquest report (Ext.Ka.4), postmortem report (Ext.Ka.5), extract of G.D. No. 2 (Ext.Ka.6), copies of the statement of P.W.6 Naresh Chandra and P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Exts.Ka.7 and 8 respectively), site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.9), copies of the statement of accused Raja Ram recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Ext.Ka.10), recovery memo of cycle (Ext.Ka.11), copies of the statements of P.W.8 Smt. Premwati, P.W.9 Smt. Ram Kali, P.W.10 Budhsen, P.W.11 Sohan Lal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Exts.Ka.12, Ka.13, Ka.14 and Ka.15 respectively), site plan of the place of recovery of bicycle of make 'Hind' (Ext.Ka.16), extract of G.D. No. 16 (Ext.Ka.17), challan report (Ext.Ka.18), diagram of the dead body (Ext.Ka.19), letters addressed to C.M.O and R.I. (Exts.Ka.20 and Ka.21 respectively), sample of seal (Ext.Ka.22), charge sheet (Ext.Ka.23), one bicycle has also been produced as (material Ext.Kha.1). 7. The accused-appellant Raja Ram in his examination u/s 313/232 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations made by the prosecution against him and pleaded that on learning about drowning of his wife, he had himself gone to the place where the inquest was held; that the witnesses had deposed against him under the pressure of police; that he was falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity between him and P.W.4 Om Prakash. He also stated that about five days prior to the alleged occurrence, his wife had gone to her parental home. The accused Smt. Lalta Devi also denied the prosecution allegations and stated that she was falsely implicated by the police at the behest of the villagers. Accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 8. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and after scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, by the impugned judgment and order convicted the accused appellant Raja Ram u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment while co-accused Smt. Lalta Devi was acquitted. 9. Hence, this appeal. 10. 9. Hence, this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since out of the three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial for proving that the appellant had pushed his wife Smt. Chandrakali into the canal, P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.6 Naresh Chandra having failed to support the prosecution case during the trial and declared hostile on the request of learned D.G.C. (Criminal), the recorded conviction of the accused-appellant on the basis of highly interested testimony of the sole remaining eye witness P.W.4 Om Prakash who was inimical towards the appellant and on whose evidence, no reliance could be placed, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. He next submitted that the failure of P.W.4 Om Prakash to either inform the police or the village chowkidar about the incident promptly and his disclosing the same to the police is clearly indicative of the fact that the entire narration of the incident given by him is fully concocted and afterthought. He also submitted that P.W.8 Smt. Premwati and P.W.9 Smt. Ram Kali, who were produced by the prosecution along with P.W.1 Prabhu Charan and P.W.4 Om Prakash during the trial to prove that the relationship between the accused-appellant Raja Ram and his wife Smt. Chandrakali were not cordial and accused-appellant Raja Ram used to always quarrel with her, which according to the prosecution was the motive for the accused-appellant to commit the murder of deceased, having also failed to support the prosecution case during the trial on the aforesaid point and declared hostile on the request of D.G.C. (Criminal), the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive for the accused-appellant to commit the murder of his wife. Moreover, P.W.10 Budhsen and P.W.11 Sohan Lal, who were examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery of accused-appellant's bicycle from his house, in their evidence tendered during the trial also had failed to support the recovery and were declared hostile. He lastly submitted that prosecution having failed to bring home the charge framed against the accused-appellant by adducing any cogent or reliable evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the accused-appellant nor the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 11. He lastly submitted that prosecution having failed to bring home the charge framed against the accused-appellant by adducing any cogent or reliable evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the accused-appellant nor the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set-aside. 11. Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State submitted that notwithstanding the fact that all the witnesses of fact examined on behalf of the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused-appellant Raja Ram except P.W.4 Om Prakash having failed to support the prosecution case during the trial, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court on the basis of the testimony of solitary eye witness P.W.4 Om Prakash which finds corroboration from the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be rejected. 12. We have very carefully considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record. 13. The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 14. The motive for committing the offence according to the prosecution case was that after the death of his younger brother, Gendal, accused-appellant Raja Ram had kept his widow, Smt. Lalta Devi as his concubine in the same house in which he was living with his wife Smt. Chandrakali on account of which there were constant fights between his first wife, deceased Smt. Chandrakali and Smt. Lalta Devi. In order to prove the aforesaid fact, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 Prabhu Charan, P.W.8 Smt. Premwati, P.W.9 Smt. Ram Kali and P.W.4 Om Prakash. P.W.1 Prabhu Charan, the village chowkidar, who is the first informant, deposed before the trial court that Smt. Lalta Devi had started living as the wife of accused-appellant Raja Ram in his house after the death of her husband which had generated tremendous acrimony between Smt. Lalta Devi and Smt. Chandrakali. He also deposed that one Qayum had informed him about the incident of drowning and only then he had lodged the written report of the occurrence at P.S. Amaria, District-Pilibhit. He also deposed that one Qayum had informed him about the incident of drowning and only then he had lodged the written report of the occurrence at P.S. Amaria, District-Pilibhit. He also deposed that the relations between the two wives of accused-appellant Raja Ram were far from cordial and co-accused Smt. Lalta Devi was putting pressure upon accused-appellant Raja Ram to turn out his first wife Smt. Chandrakali from the house. Two other witnesses who were examined to prove the aforesaid fact namely P.W.8 Premwati and P.W.9 Ram Kali had failed to support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 15. It is pertinent to note that neither P.W.1 Prabhu Charan nor P.W.4 Om Prakash were cross-examined by the defence counsel on the aforesaid point and their testimony on the aforesaid aspect of the matter remained unchallenged. 16. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 informant Prabhu Charan and P.W.4 Om Prakash, it is proved that after the death of his younger brother Gendal, appellant Raja Ram had kept his widow as his concubine in his house on account of which the relations between his wife and his concubine had become extremely strained and his marital life was in complete disharmony as Smt. Lalta Devi was insisting that appellant Raja Ram should abandon his wife. 17. Record shows that the time, date and place of the incident have not been disputed by the defence. The date, time, place of the occurrence and cause of death are fully proved from the evidence of P.W.4 Om Prakash, the F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.1), inquest report (Ext.Ka.4) and the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.Ka.5). The accused-appellant Raja Ram has admitted his presence at the time, date and place of the occurrence. It also appears that the deceased Smt. Chandrakali had died as a result of drowning on the date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the defence has failed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 18. The main question which is left to be examined now is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove by any reliable evidence that the accused-appellant Raja Ram had pushed his wife Smt. Chandrakali into the canal or she had died as a result of accidental drowning. 18. The main question which is left to be examined now is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove by any reliable evidence that the accused-appellant Raja Ram had pushed his wife Smt. Chandrakali into the canal or she had died as a result of accidental drowning. Although the prosecution endeavoured to prove the aforesaid fact by examining as many as three eye witnesses, but record shows that two of them, P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.6 Naresh Chandra failed to support the prosecution case at the trial and were declared hostile. With the permission of the Court, they were cross-examined by the D.G.C. (Criminal). However, he failed to elicit anything from them which may even remotely support the prosecution version. P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad in his evidence tendered during the trial court, had failed to identify and recognize P.W.4 Om Prakash as the person whom he had met on the date of the occurrence, coming on the bicycle from the side of Amaria. As regards the accused-appellant Raja Ram, he stated that at about 4 P.M. on the date of the occurrence, he had seen accused-appellant Raja Ram near village Bhoorkoni on the canal. He was shouting that his wife was drowning. In his cross-examination, he categorically deposed that he had not seen accused-appellant Raja Ram pushing his wife into canal. 19. Similarly, P.W.6 Naresh Chandra in his examination-in-chief had deposed that on the date of the occurrence while he was coming from his village and going towards Amaria with P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad on his bicycle, he had neither met any person near the canal nor he was acquainted with Raja Ram. On being cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.)., P.W.6 Naresh Chandra stuck to his evidence tendered by him in his examination-in-chief. 20. Now, we are left with the evidence of P.W.4 Om Prakash alone on the point of accused-appellant Raja Ram having pushed his wife Smt. Chandrakali into the canal. His credibility is sought to be shaken by the defence counsel on the ground that on account of previous enmity between him and the accused-appellant Raja Ram, he had given false evidence against him. His credibility is sought to be shaken by the defence counsel on the ground that on account of previous enmity between him and the accused-appellant Raja Ram, he had given false evidence against him. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness, provided his evidence is found to be fully reliable and if such witness is partially reliable then the rule of prudence requires that the Court should seek corroboration of the facts deposed by him from other evidence on record. There may be minor contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in his evidence but so long such contradictions and consistent discrepancies do not go to the core of the prosecution story, rendering the same unreliable, the same are liable to be ignored while appreciating his evidence. 21. We now proceed to evaluate the testimony of P.W.4 Om Prakash on the touchstone of the aforesaid principle. 22. P.W.4 Om Prakash in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of the incident, he was going to his home on his bicycle from side of Baheri, when he reached near village Pareva, he met P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.6 Naresh Chandra who were also coming on their respective bicycles. On meeting each other, they exchanged pleasantries and then started for their respective destinations. On crossing Pareva, they saw between villages Moorkoni and Pareva, accused appellant Raja Ram coming on his bicycle with his wife sitting on the carrier of his bicycle. The time was about 4 P.M. Accused-appellant Raja Ram pushed his wife into the canal. When P.W.4 Om Prakash, P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.6 Naresh Chandra reached the place where accused-appellant Raja Ram was standing with his bicycle, he saw that he was weeping. On being enquired about the reason for his weeping, he stated that his wife was drowned in the canal. Thereafter, all of them left the place of occurrence. He further deposed that accused-appellant Raja Ram had kept the widow of his younger brother Gendal as his wife in his home after the death of Gendal and the relations between his two wives were far from cordial on account of the fact that co-accused Smt. Lalta Devi was putting pressure upon the accused-appellant to abandon his first wife, Smt. Chandrakali. In his cross-examination on page 23 of the paper book, he deposed that he had seen the accused-appellant for the first time from a distance of about 40-50 paces and while he, P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad and P.W.6 Naresh Chandra were talking, they heard the sound of something falling in the water which attracted their attention and when they reached the canal, they saw accused-appellant Raja Ram weeping. P.W.4 Om Prakash further deposed that he did not ask accused-appellant Raja Ram to accompany him and left him weeping at the place where he was standing, for his village Amaria. On page 24 of the paper book in his cross-examination, he further stated that he had not given any information about the occurrence to the village chowkidar. The incident was narrated by him to the police, 23 days after the occurrence had taken place. He had not informed the village chowkidar as he had already been informed about the occurrence and he had also lodged the written report. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination on page 25 of the paper book, he admitted that he was acquainted with Aaseram of Dhankuti, who was father-in-law of Govind and the accused-appellant Raja Ram was the cousin brother (mamera bhai) of Govind. He denied that he had any knowledge that Ghanshyam with whom he was litigating for the last 68 years, was the uncle of Aaseram. 23. By referring to the aforesaid portion of the cross-examination of P.W.4 Om Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that P.W.4 had given false evidence against the accused-appellant on account of pending litigation between the appellant Raja Ram and Aaseram. It is interesting to note that the defence despite subjecting P.W.4 Om Prakash to a fairly long drawn cross-examination has not challenged the presence of P.W.4 at the time and place of occurrence. A suggestion was given to him that he had given false evidence against the accused-appellant at the behest of the aforesaid Aaseram and that he had not seen the occurrence, which he had denied. A suggestion was given to him that he had given false evidence against the accused-appellant at the behest of the aforesaid Aaseram and that he had not seen the occurrence, which he had denied. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.4 Om Prakash had given false evidence against the accused-appellant on account of his being inimical towards him, due to pendency of a litigation between P.W.4 Om Prakash and Ghanshyam, uncle of accused-appellant Raja Ram, who was father-in-law of Govind, cousin brother of appellant Raja Ram, appears to us to be too farfetched and not at all plausible. P.W.4 Om Prakash has in his cross-examination denied that he was aware that Ghanshyam was uncle of appellant Raja Ram. No direct relationship between accused-appellant Raja Ram and Ghanshyam has been proved. We have very cautiously scanned the entire testimony of P.W.4 and we have found his testimony to be consistent and clinching throughout. We do not find any reason to disbelieve him. Moreover, post-incident conduct of the accused-appellant Raja Ram is also an extremely relevant circumstance which indicates his complicity in the commission of the murder of his wife Smt. Chandrakali and the falling of the deceased into the canal was not accidental. In case his wife had actually fallen into the canal accidentally and drowned, then on returning to his village, he should have immediately given information about the occurrence to the police which admittedly he failed to do. Moreover, he setup a false plea in reply to the Question No.21 put to him during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that his wife had gone to her maternal home about five days before the occurrence which he failed to prove by adducing any evidence. We are not inclined to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 Om Prakash merely on the ground that there was delay of about two or three days on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.. 24. Thus upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and a threadbare scrutiny of the evidence on record and a careful evaluation of the facts on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubts that accused-appellant Raja Ram had knowingly caused the death of his wife Smt. Chandrakali by pushing her into canal. The learned trial Judge in our considered opinion did not commit any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting the accused-appellant Raja Ram u/s 302 I.P.C. and awarding him imprisonment for life and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 25. This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The accused-appellant Raja Ram is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties discharged. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit is forthwith directed to take him into custody and send him to jail for serving out the remaining part of his sentence. There shall however be no order as to costs.