Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 997 (RAJ)

Narendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-03

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Cr. Appeal No. 398/2009 has been preferred by the accused-appellant Narendra Kumar under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 09.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 85/2002 whereby, he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ additional imprisonment. 2. Cr. Appeal No. 627/2009 has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan for challenging the acquittal of the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram from the charge under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, Hanumangarh vide the very judgment by giving them the benefit of doubt. 3. The prosecution case originates from the written report Ex. P-1 submitted by P.W. 1 Raghuveer Singh on 25.07.2002 at about 8:45 p.m. to the Circle Inspector, Police Station Sangaria alleging inter alia that a couple of days ago, his nephew Sonu had quarrelled with Narendra Kumar @ Khema Ram S/o. Gopi Ram Jat, resident of Bhakaranwali, Hanumangarh owing to an issue of ‘Khala’ (water channel). Narendra threatened that he would kill Sonu. On 25.07.2002 at about 3 o’clock, Sandeep (P.W.3) and his aunt Smt. Saroj (P.W.2) went to the field for giving tea to Sonu. They were at a distance of about one bigha short of their field, when they saw Narendra armed with a gandasa, his maternal uncle Khayali Ram armed with a Kasiya and his Bhua’s son Lila Ram armed with a kapa assaulting Sonu, who was lying prone on a cot. All three were raining blows upon Sonu with the weapons held by them. Sandeep and his aunt Saroj raised a hue and cry on which the assailants fled away. When Sandeep and Saroj checked Sonu, they saw a large number of injuries on his head and he had passed away. Both returned home and told the informant about the incident. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 513/2002 was registered at Police Station Sangaria for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and investigation was commenced. The dead body of Sonu was subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board which issued a postmortem report (Ex. P-10) mentioning presence of five cut wounds all over the skull of the deceased with brain matter coming out. The dead body of Sonu was subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board which issued a postmortem report (Ex. P-10) mentioning presence of five cut wounds all over the skull of the deceased with brain matter coming out. The Medical Board opined that these injuries resulted into excessive bleeding and shock, leading to the death of Sonu. The Investigating Officer, arrested the accused appellant Narendra Kumar @ Khema Ram and recovered a blood stained gandasa on the basis of the information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram were exonerated and a charge sheet was filed only against the accused Narendra Kumar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, from where, the same was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The trial court framed charges against the accused-Narendra Kumar for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34 of the I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined as many as 6 witnesses whereafter, an application came to be filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was accepted by the trial Court and the left out accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram who were not charge-sheeted by the investigating agency were summoned to face trial with accused Narendra Kumar. Upon their appearance in the court, charges were framed against these two accused in the same terms as were framed against Narendra Kumar. They also denied the charges and claimed trial. Statements of six witnesses examined previously were recorded afresh and five more witnesses were examined for the first time by the prosecution. The accused were questioned regarding the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which they denied and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case owing to the greed for land. 5. Upon considering submissions of the prosecution and defence and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant Narendra Kumar for the offence under Section 302 IPC and at the same time, the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram were acquitted of the charges by the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2009, which is assailed in these two appeals. 6. 6. Shri Pradeep Shah, learned counsel representing the appellant Narendra Kumar in the appeal against conviction and the respondents Khayali Ram and Lila Ram in the appeal against acquittal, took us through the statements of material prosecution witnesses and vehemently and fervently urged that ex-facie, the accused-persons have been falsely implicated in this case. As per Shri Shah, the incident was witnessed only by one Vijay Singh, through whom Raghuveer Singh got the FIR drafted and that P.W. 3 Sandeep and P.W. 2 Saroj were concocted and cooked up as eye-witnesses to lend credence to the patently false and fictitious prosecution story in order to wreak vengeance upon the accused owing to prior enmity. He urged that the material improvements, omissions and contradictions are writ large in the statements of the three material prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Raghuveer Singh, P.W. 2 Smt. Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep. He pointed out that P.W. 1 Raghuveer Singh was confronted with his police statements Ex. D-7 and Ex. D-1 during cross examination and he candidly admitted that Vijay Singh told him about the incident. Thus, as per Shri Shah, the significant contradiction in this context as borne out from the FIR (Ex. P-1) wherein, it is mentioned that Raghuveer Singh was informed of the incident by his wife Saroj and his nephew Sandeep is fatal to the prosecution case. He further submitted that evidence of the so called eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep is unnatural. Shri Shah fervently buttressed that the claim of these witnesses that they had seen the incident from a distance of one bigha, is absolutely unbelievable and improbable. As per Shri Shah, tall crops were growing in the fields and thus it is not possible to believe that the witnesses who were at a distance of one bigha could have actually seen the assault being made on Sonu, who was lying prone on a cot. He further submitted that no independent witness from the nearby fields was examined by the prosecution so as to lend credence to the wavering and concocted testimony of P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep. He further submitted that no independent witness from the nearby fields was examined by the prosecution so as to lend credence to the wavering and concocted testimony of P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep. He contended that evidence of these two witnesses is not of sterling worth and if the same is eschewed from consideration, there remains no material worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the convicted accused Narendra Kumar and the acquitted Khayali Ram and Lila Ram with the crime. As regards, the acquittal of the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram and the appeal filed by the State there-against, Shri Shah’s contention was that it is a cardinal principal of law that acquittal of an accused recorded by the trial court can only be overturned if no other view except of conviction is possible on the basis of the appreciation of prosecution evidence. As per him, if two views are possible then the Courts should be slow in interfering in an appeal against acquittal. He implored the Court to set aside the conviction of the appellant Narendra Kumar and to dismiss the State’s appeal against acquittal of the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram. 7. Per contra, Shri Vishnu Kachhawaha, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kulwant Singh, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Shah. They urged that the testimony of P.W. 1 Raghuveer Singh, P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep is absolutely natural and convincing and hence, they were rightly treated to be witnesses of sterling worth by the trial Court for recording conviction of the accused Narendra Kumar. They contended that no significant cross examination was conducted by the defence from P.W.2 Saroj and Sandeep P.W.3, regarding the fact that they had witnessed the assault being made on the deceased. They submitted that the minor contradictions and omissions elicited from these witnesses while confronting them with their previous investigational statements (recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) regarding disclosure about the incident made to the first informant Raghuveer Singh are trivial and of no consequence in the backdrop of the fact that Raghuveer Singh affirmatively stated that he lodged the FIR on the basis of the information supplied to him by these two persons. They contended that considering that the time of incident which was about 3:00-3:30 p.m., the presence of mother and cousin of the deceased in the field for the purpose of supplying him refreshments is absolutely natural. They further contended that a blood stained “gandasa” was recovered at the instance of the accused Narendra Kumar in furtherance of the information supplied by him to the Investigating Officer and the same tested positive for presence of human blood group ‘AB’ which matches with the blood group of the deceased thus lending significant corroboration to the ocular testimony of Saroj (P.W.2) and Sandeep (P.W.3). Regarding the acquitted accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram they contended that since the Investigating Officer officer left out these accused and did not charge sheet them without any plausible cause or reason, manifestly there remained no possibility of recoveries being effected from them during investigation. However they urged that evidence of recovery of weapons etc. is only required to lend corroboration to direct evidence. As per them, if upon evaluation, the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses is found to be cogent, convincing and reliable, then it would not require any corroboration whatsoever in form of recovery of weapons etc. It was their submission that the eyewitnesses P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep gave cogent and convincing evidence stating in an unflinching manner about the involvement of all the three accused in the crime with the categoric narration that each of them was armed with a sharp weapon which was used to assault the deceased and that, the said allegation is duly corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Sushila Choudhary who carried out postmortem upon the body of the deceased and noted a large number of sharp weapon injuries on his skull which proved fatal. As per them, the finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that failure to effect recoveries of the weapons of offence from the two non-chargesheeted accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram is fatal to the prosecution case to their extent is absolutely perverse, arbitrary and cannot be sustained. As per them, the finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that failure to effect recoveries of the weapons of offence from the two non-chargesheeted accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram is fatal to the prosecution case to their extent is absolutely perverse, arbitrary and cannot be sustained. They strenuously contended that once the trial Court recorded a finding in the impugned judgment that the two eye-witnesses Saroj and Sandeep had seen the incident involving the fatal assault made on deceased Sonu and their evidence was held to be reliable qua the convicted accused Narendra Kumar, the same could not have been discarded while recording acquittal of the non chargesheeted accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram on the ground that the same does not get corroboration in form of recoveries etc. They thus urged that findings recorded by the trial Court for acquitting the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram are perverse and illegal on the face of the record and no view other than holding these two accused guilty, is permissible in light of unflinching, cogent and reliable evidence of the eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Saroj and P.W. 3 Sandeep. On these grounds, they craved dismissal of the appeal against conviction and acceptance of the appeal against acquisition. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and have minutely examined the record. We have thoroughly sifted and re-appreciated the evidence of the witnesses examined during trial. 9. The Trial Court, whilst appreciating the evidence of the two eye-witnesses viz. Saroj RW. 2 and Sandeep P.W.3 held the same to be reliable qua the accused Narendra but discarded the same qua the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram on the ground that their evidence is not corroborated by recoveries etc. Law is well settled that evidence of recoveries of weapons etc. is required only to lend credence and credibility and to corroborate the substantive evidence in form of evidence of the eye-witnesses. If the statements of eye-witnesses by itself are considered to be reliable and convincing for establishing the guilt of the accused, manifestly the same would not require any corroboration. is required only to lend credence and credibility and to corroborate the substantive evidence in form of evidence of the eye-witnesses. If the statements of eye-witnesses by itself are considered to be reliable and convincing for establishing the guilt of the accused, manifestly the same would not require any corroboration. Upon a thorough perusal and reappraisal of the statements of these two witnesses, i.e. Sandeep (P.W.3) and Saroj (P.W.2), we are satisfied that nothing significant was elicited during their cross examination so as to doubt the credibility of their assertion that they saw the three accused assaulting the deceased Sonu by sharp weapons. The so called significant contradiction upon which Shri Pradeep Shah questioned the veracity of the version of these two witnesses was that in the FIR (Ex. P-1) as well as in the investigational statement of Raghuveer Singh (Ex. D-1), it was recorded that Raghuveer Singh was informed about the incident for the first time by Vijay Singh whereas, while deposing in the Court, Raghuveer Singh claimed that he was informed about the incident by Sandeep and Saroj. In this regard, we have carefully scrutinized the statements of Raghuveer Singh P.W. 1, Saroj P.W. 2 and Sandeep P.W. 3. As is apparent, the witnesses must have been highly perturbed by the murder of a young family member and thus, a minor contradiction in the FIR regarding the source of information and that too lodged by a person who had second hand information of the incident cannot be of significance so as to discard the testimony of the eye-witnesses. It is likely that Vijay Singh also might be told of the incident to the informant and thus, this fact was casually mentioned by him. 10. Smt. Saroj P.W. 2 stated in her examination-in-chief that she had gone to their agricultural field at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon on the fateful day carrying tea for her son Sonu. Her maternal nephew Sandeep was accompanying her. When they were at a distance of about one bigha from the field, both of them saw Narendra, Khayali Ram and Lila Ram inflicting injuries on the head of Sonu. Narendra was having ‘Gandasa’, Khayali Ram was having ‘Kasiya’ and Lila Ram was having ‘Kapa’ in his hand. She ran towards Sonu and checked him to find that he had passed away on account of head injuries and the wounds were bleeding excessively. Narendra was having ‘Gandasa’, Khayali Ram was having ‘Kasiya’ and Lila Ram was having ‘Kapa’ in his hand. She ran towards Sonu and checked him to find that he had passed away on account of head injuries and the wounds were bleeding excessively. Sandeep took her back home on a carnal cart. On reaching home, she told about the incident to her brother-in-law Raghuveer Singh. An year earlier, Narendra had quarrelled with her son owing to a dispute over the water canal and had threatened to kill him. In cross examination the witness was confronted with omission in her previous police statements Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3 regarding giving information of the incident to Raghuveer Singh. In further cross examination, the witness was asked whether she could specify as to particular injury caused by accused to the deceased, which she answered in negative. However, it emerges from the entire cross examination carried out from this witness, is that no specific suggestion was given to her by the defence that she and Sandeep did not see the incident happening with their own eyes. The contention of defence counsel Shri Shah that tall crops were standing between the place from where the eye-witnesses claimed to have seen the incident and thus they would not be in a position to see the assault taking place is also futile because no such suggestion was given to either Saroj and Sandeep, who also gave evidence akin to what was stated by Saroj and in his cross examination as well, there is no such suggestion of the defence that neither he, nor Saroj could inter alia see the assault taking place. 11. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the testimony of the eye-witnesses Saroj P.W.2 and Sandeep P.W. 3 is unimpeachable and from their evidence, it can be concluded beyond any manner of doubt that the three accused assaulted the deceased by sharp weapons and killed him at the spot. 12. P.W.1 Raghuveer Singh stated in his evidence that Sonu was his nephew. Two days before the incident Sonu had quarrelled with Narendra owing to a dispute of’ Khala’. Narendra threatened Sonu of dire consequences. On the day of occurrence at about 3:00-3:30 p.m., Saroj and Sandeep came to him and told that they had gone to fields for giving tea to Sonu. Two days before the incident Sonu had quarrelled with Narendra owing to a dispute of’ Khala’. Narendra threatened Sonu of dire consequences. On the day of occurrence at about 3:00-3:30 p.m., Saroj and Sandeep came to him and told that they had gone to fields for giving tea to Sonu. They saw from a distance of one Bigha that Narendra having armed with a ‘Gandasa’, Khiyali Ram armed with a ‘Kasiya’ and Lila Ram armed with ‘Kapa’ were assaulting Sonu by weapons held by them. Saroj and Sandeep raised a hue and cry, upon which, the accused ran away. They checked Sonu who was lying on the Charpai and felt that he had passed away. On receiving this information, the witness went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Sonu lying on the Charpai. In cross examination, the witness was confronted with his previous statement (Ex. D-1) wherein it is mentioned that Vijay Singh also accompanied him to the place of occurrence. The witness also confronted with the previous statement (EX. D-1) wherein, he did not mention that all the three accused gave blows on the head of the deceased. However, we find that these contradictions/omissions are absolutely trivial in nature. The witness was further confronted with his previous statement (Ex. D-1) wherein he stated that the information about the incident was given to him by Vijay Singh and upon receiving this information, the witness rushed to the field where, he saw Sonu’s father Raghuveer Singh and Saroj and his own son Sonu present there. Saroj and Sandeep told the witness that they had seen the assault with their own eyes. Manifestly, the contradiction which the defence harps upon is in relation to the fact as to whether the first hand information of the incident was given to the witness by Vijay Singh or that he was told of the incident by Saroj and Sandeep. We are duly satisfied that this contradiction is also very trivial in nature. The fact remains that even in the previous statement (Ex. D-1) the witness mentioned that Saroj and Sandeep told him that they had seen the three accused assaulting the deceased. We are duly satisfied that this contradiction is also very trivial in nature. The fact remains that even in the previous statement (Ex. D-1) the witness mentioned that Saroj and Sandeep told him that they had seen the three accused assaulting the deceased. It is quite natural that the witnesses must have become very seriously perturbed on seeing the ghastly assault and thus, the trivial contradiction regarding the place and time where the witnesses Saroj and Sandeep told the first information Raghuveer Singh of the incident are hardly of any consequence. P.W.2 Saroj gave affirmative evidence that she and her maternal nephew Sandeep went to the field for providing tea to her son Sonu and saw from a distance of about one bigha that Narendra, Khayali Ram and Lila Ram were raining sharp weapon blows on the head of Sonu. They raised raised a hue and cry upon which, the accused went away. They checked Sonu and found that he had passed away. Both these witnesses were confronted with their investigational statements wherein, there appears to be a minor discrepancy regarding the place where these witnesses told Shri Raghuveer Singh of the incident. However, we feel that this contradiction is also very trivial in nature and cannot be given much credence. 13. No doubt, a suggestion was given by the defence to Raghuveer Singh P.W. 1 in this regard that he did not mention in the written report Ex. P-1 that Saroj and Sandeep had told him regarding the fact that they had seen the accused persons inflicting head injuries to the deceased but this contradiction is far too trivial so as to attach much significance to it. On a perusal of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Raghuveer Singh P.W.1 it does appear that the witnesses informed to the police officer that Vijay Singh told him of the incident but upon an overall perusal of the said statement, it becomes clear that in addition to stating that Vijay Singh supplied him the information that Sonu had been hurt in the field, the witness also stated that Saroj and Sandeep came and stated that they had seen the three accused causing fatal injuries to Sonu by sharp weapons. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the so called contradiction stressed upon by Shri Shah as existing in the FIR vis-a-vis the investigational statement of Raghuveer Singh and his sworn testimony as to who gave him the first hand information of the incident is far too trivial and insignificant so as to discard the unflinching and convincing testimony of the two eye-witnesses Saroj P.W. 2 and Sandeep P.W. 3. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that so far as the conviction of the appellant Narendra as recorded by the Trial Court by drawing a conclusion that the two eye-witnesses referred to supra saw Narendra inflicting the fatal blows to the deceased is concerned, the same is based on an apropos thorough and balanced appreciation of evidence and does not warrant any interference whatsoever. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is corroborated on all aspects by the recovery of the blood stained weapon made at the instance of the accused Narendra in furtherance of the information supplied by him to the Investigating Officer, and the postmortem report of the deceased (Ex. P-21) as per which he was found having a large number of sharp weapon injuries on his head and the FSL report which records the presence of same blood group (AB) on the weapon recovered from Narendra and the clothes of the deceased. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal against conviction filed on behalf of Narendra. 14. Now, coming to the appeal filed against acquittal by the State Of Rajasthan seeking reversal of the exoneration of the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram. In this regard we have already appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and have recorded a well considered satisfaction that the witnesses Saroj RW. 2 and Sandeep RW. 3 were the most natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence and that their testimony regarding the fact that they had seen all the three accused inflicting injuries by sharp weapons to the deceased is wholly reliable. The Trial Court, proceeded to discard the testimony of these witnesses qua the acquitted accused on the premise that their evidence is not corroborated by the recovery of weapons etc. Suffice it to say that seeking corroboration of statement of an eye-witness whose evidence is otherwise reliable, is not a sine-qua-non. 15. The Trial Court, proceeded to discard the testimony of these witnesses qua the acquitted accused on the premise that their evidence is not corroborated by the recovery of weapons etc. Suffice it to say that seeking corroboration of statement of an eye-witness whose evidence is otherwise reliable, is not a sine-qua-non. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered this aspect in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 and held as below:- “14. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that “no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar’s ‘Law of Evidence’ - 9th Edition, at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s. 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed and not counted”. Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime had been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 15. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” 16. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Chhaakki Lal and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 381 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the effect of the negligence of an Investigating Officer, in an appeal against acquittal, held as below: “33. For reversing the verdict of conviction, the High Court has pointed out that there was delay in sending the seized gun and pistol (recovered on 01.03.2006) which was sent to the FSL only on 19.04.2006. The High Court has doubted the case of prosecution by observing that apart from delay in sending the seized guns/pistol, there is no material showing as to where the seized weapons were kept during the period from 01.03.2006 to 19.04.2006. Such delay in sending the recovered weapons to FSL could only be an omission or lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. Such omissions or lapses in the investigation cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case which is otherwise credible and cogent. In Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 317 , it was held as under: 9....Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. In Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 317 , it was held as under: 9....Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.” 17. Seen in light of the affirmative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the firm view that if the evidence of an eye-witness is cogent and of clinching worth and the witness has not been shaken in the cross examination, the Court would not be required to seek corroboration thereof. As we have held above, that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses i.e. Saroj (P.W.2) and Sandeep (P.W.3) is faithful and reliable and since their testimony regarding having seen the fatal assault being made on the deceased Sonu could not be shaken in cross examination, manifestly there was no requirement of seeking corroboration thereof in form of recovery of weapons when the involvement of the non-chargesheeted accused Khilayi Ram and Lila Ram (Since acquitted) was being considered. If the logic applied by the Trial Court were to be accepted, then in each and every case of assault and murder wherein the investigating officer might not succeed in effecting recoveries of weapons, the prosecution case would have to fail even if it was based on the cogent and convincing evidence of reliable eye-witnesses. If this view is approved, it would inspire the investigating officers to effect fake recoveries for ensuring success of the case or else, the Court would have to let the offender go scotfree. As we have discussed above, the Investigating Officer gave a clean chit to the two acquitted accused namely Khayali Ram and Lila Ram and exonerated them during the course of investigation and without making any attempt to arrest them. No significant reason was assigned in the final report so formulated, for leaving out these two persons who were named in the FIR from arraignment. In this background, since these two accused were never arrested during investigation, there was no possibility of recoveries being effected from them. No significant reason was assigned in the final report so formulated, for leaving out these two persons who were named in the FIR from arraignment. In this background, since these two accused were never arrested during investigation, there was no possibility of recoveries being effected from them. However, only the lack of evidence of recovery cannot be construed as fatally prejudicing the prosecution case once, the Court arrives at a satisfaction that the evidence of the prosecution eye witnesses is convincing, clinching and establishes the involvement of the particular accused in the crime beyond all manner of doubt. 18. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment for acquitting the two accused respondents (Appeal No. 627/2009) are perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record and hence the same cannot be sustained. Law is well settled that interference in a judgment of acquittal should be made in the rare circumstances and only where no two views are possible other than conviction of acquitted accused. However, as we have held after a threadbare discussion and analysis of the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses that no view other than holding all the three accused guilty for the murder of Sonu is possible and that the finding recorded by the Trial Court while discarding the evidence of the eye-witnesses for acquitting the two accused is perverse and contrary; the only possible and logical consequence would be to overturn the impugned judgment and to record conviction of the respondents accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram in appeal against acquittal. ORDER OF CONVICTION 19. Accordingly, the Appeal No. 627/2009 is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 09.04.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside qua the acquitted accused. The findings of innocence/exoneration recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the acquitted accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram are hereby reversed and they are held liable and convicted for the charges under Section 302/34 IPC. ORDER OF SENTENCE 20. Heard the arguments of Shri Pradeep Shah learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor on the aspect of sentences. The co-accused Narendra Kumar has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-. The incident is of the year 2009. More than 10 years have passed since then. ORDER OF SENTENCE 20. Heard the arguments of Shri Pradeep Shah learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor on the aspect of sentences. The co-accused Narendra Kumar has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-. The incident is of the year 2009. More than 10 years have passed since then. The case does not involve the rarest of rare circumstances warranting award of death sentence to the accused. 21. In this background, we sentence each of the respondents, namely, Khayali Ram and Lila Ram, to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the respondents shall further undergo two months’ additional imprisonment. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith. The trial court shall ensure that the accused Khayali Ram and Lila Ram are taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded. 22. A copy of this judgment be placed in both the files.