JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.07.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.18/2012, whereby, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount 10 days additional simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records of the case and the impugned judgment, is that on 17.12.2011 when Satiram (the deceased) was sleeping in the hutment along with his wife Sumitra Bai (PW-7), at about 9:00 p.m. in the night, the appellant arrived at the spot along with an axe and gave repeated assaults on the neck, head and other parts of the body, due to which, Satiram fell down on the spot. Threatened by the appellant, the wife Sumitra ran away from the spot and it is said that thereafter, she went to inform the incident to her brother-in-law Laksha Kumar (PW5), son Surendra Bhunjiya (Pw12) and daughter Santoshi Bai (PW6), who arrived at the spot and it is said that all of them saw the appellant present at the spot and thereafter running away. The matter was brought to the notice of villagers and next morning, an FIR in Ex.P/7 was lodged in the police station by Laksha Kumar (PW5). A morgue in Ex.P/7A was also recorded on the intimation given by this witness Laksha Kumar (PW5). After the police reached at the place of occurrence, inquest of dead body was prepared after giving notice to the witness and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem. According to the prosecution, Dr. M.S. Thakur (PW3) conducted postmortem and prepared a report in Ex.P/3. Further case of the prosecution is that the memorandum of the appellant was recorded by investigating officer and on his memorandum, the weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of offence, namely, an axe was recovered at his instance from his house and seized vide Ex.P/14. The blood stained and plain soil seized from the spot as also blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized and sent for serological report to FSL. The blood stained and plain soil seized from the spot as also blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized and sent for serological report to FSL. Statement of prosecution witness was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and upon completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the case for trial to the Session Judge. 3. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant on 10.04.2012 for alleged commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt, he was put to trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution. The appellant in his examination denied all the incriminating circumstances and stated that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. 5. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court held that the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt and having so held that the appellant has murdered Satiram, imposed life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 10 days additional simple imprisonment. 6. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had assaulted the deceased. He would submit that the solitary eyewitness Sumitra Bai (PW7) is not reliable in the absence of any independent corroboration because the prosecution has failed to come out with any motive for commission of offence. The prosecution witnesses have consistently stated in the deposition before the Court that there was no enmity between the parties. On this point, all the prosecution witnesses have contradicted their diary statement wherein it was recorded that the appellant and the deceased had some previous enmity and for that reason, the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. The prosecution witnesses have consistently stated in the deposition before the Court that there was no enmity between the parties. On this point, all the prosecution witnesses have contradicted their diary statement wherein it was recorded that the appellant and the deceased had some previous enmity and for that reason, the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident is alleged to have happened in and around a hutment which is far away from the locality and all have stated that there was no light arrangement and electricity. As the witnesses have said that the incident happened in the night and there was no light, it is highly doubtful whether Sumitra Bai had at all seen the incident, in which, her husband was killed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the prosecution story that Sumitra informed Laksha Kumar (PW5), Santoshi Bai (PW6) and Surendra Bhunjiya (PW12) that the appellant is assaulting Satiram is not proved by clinching evidence and the witnesses have given different version. He would submit that as far as Laksha Kumar (PW5) is concerned, in the FIR Ex.P/7 recorded at his instance and in his diary statement, he has stated that when he reached at the spot, he found the appellant present and then the appellant ran away from the spot whereas in his Court's statement though he states that the appellant was found at the spot, he says that he and other persons present who arrived at the spot, ran away from the scene of occurrence. As far as Santoshi Bai (PW6) is concerned, she does not support the prosecution story that Sumitra Bai informed her that the appellant is assaulting her father. She has stated that she did not tell her mother as to who was assaulting her father. The statement of Surendra in this regard is not reliable because this prosecution witness has not remained firm on this statement. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses of the prosecution have admitted that the appellant was possessed of extensive property and he had no issue, his wife had also left him and he was residing only with his old aged mother. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses of the prosecution have admitted that the appellant was possessed of extensive property and he had no issue, his wife had also left him and he was residing only with his old aged mother. It has also come in the evidence of the witnesses that the meeting was arranged in the village at the instance of Laksha Kumar (PW5) in which, it was resolved that the appellant should not be allowed to be released from jail. These evidence prove that there was a strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the alleged commission of offence. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the recovery of weapon has not been proved by independent witness. Adruram (PW10) and Rameshwar Nishad (PW11) who were independent witnesses of memorandum and recovery have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the memorandum and seizure has become doubtful and cannot be relied upon only on the testimony of Investigating Officer J.L. Dhruv (PW18). Therefore, for all those reasons, on this ground, in the absence of independent corroboration of the eyewitness account, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted. In support of submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 10 and Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017(14) SCC 291 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the case of the prosecution and conviction is based on eyewitness account of none other than the wife of the deceased Sumitra Bai (PW7), who has clearly stated in her deposition in the Court that when she was sleeping in the hutment along with her husband, the appellant arrived at the spot holding an axe and assaulted her husband. He would submit that irrespective of the contradictions and omissions in the testimony of other witnesses, in the absence of any material contradictions or omissions in the testimony of eyewitness Sumitra Bai, her evidence may not be discarded. There is no motive as to why she would falsely implicate the real culprit of the incident. He would submit that irrespective of the contradictions and omissions in the testimony of other witnesses, in the absence of any material contradictions or omissions in the testimony of eyewitness Sumitra Bai, her evidence may not be discarded. There is no motive as to why she would falsely implicate the real culprit of the incident. He would further submit that even though some of the witnesses of the prosecution have said that electricity connection was not available in the hutment, in the cross-examination, Sumitra Bai (PW7) has clearly stated that there was a chimney and fire also at the spot and has stood firm on her statement that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who assaulted her husband. He would further submit that the presence of the appellant at the spot is proved from the testimony of Laksha Kumar (PW5) and Surendra Bhunjiya (PW12). The ocular testimony is fully corroborated not only from the medical evidence with regard to the nature of injury and the place of the body where such injury was inflicted but also from the evidence of Jagdev (PW8) before whom the appellant confessed having murdered Satiram. He submits that in the evidence of this witness, there is no suggestion that he is speaking lie or had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Therefore, even though in view of reliable testimony of Sumitra Bai (PW7), there was no requirement of any independent corroboration, there is sufficient corroboration to her statement and the conviction of the appellant, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration to submissions and records of the case. 10. The first information report in Ex.P/7 lodged by Laksha Kumar (PW5) and recorded by J.L. Dhruv (PW18) has been proved from the testimony of these two witnesses. Laksha Kumar (PW5) has deposed before the Court that when he was informed by sister-in-law Sumitra at about 9:00 p.m. in the night that the appellant is assaulting Satiram by an axe, he went to the spot and found that Satiram was lying in bloodbath. He had sustained injury on the temporal part as also on the shoulder and was dead. According to him, the appellant was present at the spot and holding an axe. He had sustained injury on the temporal part as also on the shoulder and was dead. According to him, the appellant was present at the spot and holding an axe. He further deposed that thereafter he went to the police station and lodged report in Ex.P/7 and has proved his signature. With regard to lodging of FIR, nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination to doubt that it is this witness who had lodged the report. Mr. J.L. Dhruv (PW18), Investigating Officer has also stated in the evidence that upon information given by this witness Laksha Kumar (PW5), the FIR was recorded in Ex.P/7 and has also proved his signature. In the FIR (Ex.P/7), it has been recorded at the instance of Laksha Kumar (PW5) that he is resident of village Kodomali and agriculturist, his elder brother Satiram resides with his wife in the hutment near the fields adjacent to the village and on 17.12.2012 in the night, his sister-in-law Sumitra Bai came and informed that his brother is being assaulted by the appellant Tiloram then he along with his nephew Surendra went to the hutment and saw that Tiloram had already assaulted and was holding an axe in his hand and running away from the spot. His brother was lying in bloodbath in the hutment. There were injury on his left temporal part and shoulder part and by that time, he died and villagers were called. He stated that there was previous enmity between the Satiram and Tiloram and because of the previous enmity, assault has been given. He also stated that his sister-in-law Sumitra Bai has seen the assault and report thereafter has been lodged at the instance happens in the night. 11. The morgue intimation Ex.P/7A has also been proved by J.L. Dhruv (PW18) that at the instance of Laksha Kumar, morgue intimation was also recorded by him in which also it has been recorded that on 17.12.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. in the night, Satiram while sleeping in the hutment has been assaulted by Tiloram, in which, he died. 12. The prosecution case rests mainly on the testimony of eyewitness Sumitra Bai (PW7) who undisputedly is the wife of the deceased. In her testimony, this witness has deposed that the appellant is her uncle-in-law. 12. The prosecution case rests mainly on the testimony of eyewitness Sumitra Bai (PW7) who undisputedly is the wife of the deceased. In her testimony, this witness has deposed that the appellant is her uncle-in-law. She deposes that when she and her husband were present in 'Lari' (hutment) at about 8:00 p.m. in the night, she and her husband were sleeping and at that time, the appellant arrived at the spot along with an axe and gave blows on the neck of her husband and cut the neck. When she requested the appellant to leave her husband, he did not accept and threatened by the appellant, she went towards her house and at that time, the appellant was assaulting her husband. She went to the house and informed her son Surendra and brother-in-law Laksha Kumar (PW5) whereafter all of them had come running towards hutment. By that time, her husband died. She further states that she does not know why the appellant killed her husband. She also states that she does not know whether before the incident, her husband was threatened by the appellant. She has also stated that there was no dispute between the appellant and her husband. 13. On this statement, this witness was declared hostile and the prosecution confronted with her previous statement Ex.P/10, wherein she has stated regarding previous enmity but this witness states that she had not given such statement. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that though there was no arrangement of electricity and light in the hutment, she, herself, stated that there was a lantern (chimney) and a fireplace also at the spot. She further states that before the incident she and her husband were sleeping. She has denied suggestion that as she was sleeping, she could not see as to who assaulted her husband and she reaffirmed that the appellant had thrown her husband outside the hutment. She also denied the suggestion that her husband was killed by naxalite. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the appellant used to come to the house of the deceased. A suggestion that she has not seen the appellant assaulting her husband, has been clearly denied. She, herself, says that she resisted the accused from assaulting her husband and she was also assaulted. 14. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the appellant used to come to the house of the deceased. A suggestion that she has not seen the appellant assaulting her husband, has been clearly denied. She, herself, says that she resisted the accused from assaulting her husband and she was also assaulted. 14. At this stage, submission of learned counsel for the appellant has to be noted that no injury have been found on any part of the body of this witness. Further, she admits that when she came back along with her son and brother-in-law, the appellant was not there and had already ran away. She has admitted that on the next day, the appellant had also come to see the dead body. She admits that the appellant has left his wife 15 years before. She has denied the suggestion that in order to grab 12 acres of agriculture land and pond belonging to the appellant, a false report has been lodged under a conspiracy. 15. The aforesaid witness happens to be the wife of the deceased. The contradiction is brought about in her testimony when confronted with her diary statement with regard to the motive. Except this, no other contradiction has been elicited in her cross-examination. Though, this witness has admitted that there was no electricity, she has emphatically stated that there was a lantern lighting at the spot and there was also a fireplace nearby the place where she and her husband were sleeping. Present is not a case where the eyewitness had seen the incident from a considerable distance so as to say that in the absence of there being a provision for electricity, it was not possible for the witness to see and recognize the face of the person giving assault. From her evidence, it is clear that she and her husband (deceased) were sleeping together that means she was very close next to her husband in the hutment where there was a lantern lighting and a fireplace was also nearby. If the wife was sleeping so close to her husband, this Court cannot doubt her testimony only on the ground that there was no electricity at the spot. 16. If the wife was sleeping so close to her husband, this Court cannot doubt her testimony only on the ground that there was no electricity at the spot. 16. True, it is that number of witnesses of the prosecution have admitted in their cross-examination that there was no electricity connection but except this, no other evidence has come forth to doubt the testimony of Sumitra Bai (PW7) only on the ground that in the hutment, there was no electricity connection. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly put forth that there was strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant. After giving our anxious consideration to the submission, we are unable to accept the submission. The suggestion in this regard has been emphatically denied. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any pre-existing animosity between the appellant and the deceased in connection with rival claim over any property. It has been the case of the appellant, himself and has come in the evidence that there was no pre-existing animosity between the appellant and the deceased. In the absence of any material and clinching evidence, a mere suggestion that the appellant would be falsely implicated only to grab the property, cannot be accepted. It is true that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive. But then, the legal position in this regard is well settled that if testimony of the eyewitness is reliable, absence of motive would not be a ground to disbelieve the eyewitness account of a reliable witness. It would be another thing that because of any material contradiction, omission and other attending circumstances of the case, the Court may require corroborative evidence to lay evidence to the testimony of the eyewitness. But on principles, it cannot be accepted that in the absence of motive, without anything more, the conviction cannot be rested on the testimony of eyewitness. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also stressed on the aspect that there was a meeting organized in the village at the instance of Laksha Kumar (PW5), the brother of the deceased, wherein, the villagers resolved to ensure that the appellant is not released. In our consideration opinion, that by itself, does not mean that there was any motive to falsely implicate. 19. In our consideration opinion, that by itself, does not mean that there was any motive to falsely implicate. 19. The wife and other members of the family and the villagers, who had arrived at the spot all of them were disclosed that it is the appellant who has assaulted the deceased. 20. It would be noteworthy that the name of the appellant, as the assailant, has been involved in the evidence right from the beginning, in the morgue and FIR recorded and the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of Sumitra Bai (PW7), it has been stated that it is the appellant who assaulted the deceased. Moreover, the ocular testimony of Sumitra Bai (PW7) is fully corroborated from the medical evidence on record. Sumitra Bai (PW7) has stated that the appellant arrived at the spot along with an axe and assaulted her husband on his neck and shoulder, due to which, the neck was cut. The prosecution has proved the postmortem report Ex.P/3 from the evidence of Dr. M.S. Thakur (PW3). The evidence of Dr. Sumitra Bai (PW7) has stated that the appellant arrived at the spot along with an axe and assaulted her husband on his neck and shoulder, due to which, the neck was cut. The prosecution has proved the postmortem report Ex.P/3 from the evidence of Dr. M.S. Thakur (PW3). The evidence of Dr. M.S. Thakur, who examined the dead body and gave an opinion is as below : **2- ckg~; ijh{k.k %& 1- 'kjhj e`r ,oa vdM+k gqvk FkkA iSjkblkbt oq.M cka;s lkbM ds psgjs esaA cka;s lkbM ds tcM+s esa 2 x 1 x 1 bap dk pksV Fkk vkSj cka;k tcM+k VwVk gqvk ik;k x;kA 2- balkbt oq.M [kksiM+h ds fiNys Hkkx esa 2 x 2 x 1@2 bap pksV ik;k x;k vkSj vDlhihfVy cksu QzSDpj FkkA 3- balkbt oq.M cka;s dku ds uhps 2 x 2 x 1 bap pksV ik;k x;kA 4- balkbt oq.M xnZu ds fupys nka;s Hkkx esa 3 x 2 bap pksV FkkA 5- balkbt oq.M xnZu ds fupys nka;s Hkkx esa 3 x 2 bap pksV FkkA 6- balkbt oq.M xnZu ds fupys nka;s Hkkx esa 4 x 3 bap pksV FkkA xnZu dk iwjk vax dVk gqvk Fkk] ek= peM+h ls yVdk gqvk FkkA 7- balkbt oq.M ihB ds Åijh Hkkx esa 4 x 3 x 2 bap pksV FkkA 8- balkbt oq.M nka;s da/ks ds ihNs Hkkx esa 2 x 1 bap pksV FkkA 3- vkarfjd ijh{k.k %& 1- eqag] xzkluyh dats'ku FkkA isV esa v/kipk Hkkstu FkkA yhoj isykj] LIyhu] xqnkZ isykj] eq= Fksyh [kkyh FkkA ckgjh tusUnzh;ka ls oh;Z fudyk gqvk Fkk vkSj diM+s esa yxk gqvk FkkA 4- vfHker %& dBksj ,oa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ds }kjk xnZu esa pksV yxus ds dkj.k vR;kf/kd ek=k esa [kwu cg pqdk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k mldh e`R;q gqbZ FkhA e`R;q gksfelkbMy izd`fr dk gSA e`R;q 'ko ijh{k.k ds yxHkx 16 ls 18 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh gks ldrh gSA esjh fjiksVZ iz0ih03 gS] ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 21. In the cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to doubt the fact that the doctor has actually conducted the postmortem report and observed injury and noted by him in his report as also the opinion. The evidence in this regard would clearly show that the deceased suffered incised wound on various part of his body which included the left temporal, neck, head as also shoulder and back. The evidence in this regard would clearly show that the deceased suffered incised wound on various part of his body which included the left temporal, neck, head as also shoulder and back. The postmortem and the evidence of doctor reveals as many as three injuries on the neck caused by sharp weapon resulting in incised wound. There is an injury on the shoulder. In addition, there are injuries on the back as also head and face. The evidence of eyewitness Sumitra Bai (PW7) is regarding assault by an axe on the neck and shoulder. Thus, ocular testimony of this witness is fully corroborated from the medical evidence on record. 22. Learned Trial Court also noticed that in the present case, Jagdev (PW8) has deposed in his evidence that the appellant confessed before him that he has killed the Satiram. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of this witness is not reliable because in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the police had not recorded his case diary statement in Ex.D/1 and he is for the first time deposing in the Court that the appellant had confessed commission of offence before him. 23. At the first place, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the testimony of witness are necessarily be discarded only because 161 Cr.P.C. statement has not been recorded. Nevertheless, the testimony of such witness is required to be carefully examined with utmost circumspection. In the examination-in-chief, Jagdev (PW8) has stated that the appellant came to his house and confessed that he had assaulted Satiram with an axe and had ran away. In his cross-examination, though he admits that his statement was not taken by the police as shown in Ex.D/1, there is no suggestion given to the witness that he is telling lie or is a concocted witness to support the case of the prosecution. There is, in fact, no suggestion in the cross-examination that he had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. 24. Therefore, this Court, after having gone through the complete statement of this witness in the Court, does not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony only on the ground that his diary statement was not recorded by police as stated by him. 25. 24. Therefore, this Court, after having gone through the complete statement of this witness in the Court, does not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony only on the ground that his diary statement was not recorded by police as stated by him. 25. True it is that the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the independent witness Adruram (PW10) and Rameshwar Nishad (PW11) of the memorandum have not supported the case of the prosecution, in view of finding which were recorded herein above that firstly the testimony of Sumitra Bai (PW7) does not suffer from such contradiction and omission that it should seek any independent corroboration, in any case, there are corroboration to her testimony as discussed herein above. 26. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts in the present case. 27. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.