Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 414 (ORI)

Tularam Naik v. State of Odisha

2022-09-05

M.S.SAHOO, S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - The appellant has filed this Prisoner's Petition from the jail to challenge the Judgment dated 05.10.2013 delivered in Sessions Trial Case No.37/43/97 of 2010-13. The challenge encompasses simultaneously the order of sentence dated 05.10.2013. 2. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of Duryodhan Nayak, father of the appellant on .08.2009 at 3 P.M. As the appellant denied the said charge and raised the plea of innocence, he was put to trial. On completion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. As consequence of the said conviction, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, the appellant would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25.08.2009, at about 3 P.M., the appellant killed his father by a Katara (Bill Hook) and his dead body was left lying on the road side of Jali Bahal Chowk. Having received the said information from Mantu Naik, Purandar Naik, another son of the deceased, informed the occurrence to Laikera Police Station and on that basis, Laikera P.S. Case No.100(19) of 2009 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. Since the informant clearly revealed that his brother, namely Tularam Naik [the appellant] committed the murder, he was arrested and finally, he was put to trial on the said charge. The trial was conducted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 15) including Hiralal Sandha- P.W.7, who claimed to have witnessed the appellant giving blows on the vital parts of the deceased by a Khandasa. That apart, 13 documentary evidence have been admitted in the record to support the charge. 5. From the defence, no documentary evidence has been laid, but the appellant examined himself as D.W.1. That remained the only evidence from the defence. 6. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have his response to the incriminating evidence that surfaced in the trial. The appellant denied such evidence as concocted or fabricated and falsified to implicate him in the case. 7. Having appreciated the evidence, the trial Judge (Addl. 6. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have his response to the incriminating evidence that surfaced in the trial. The appellant denied such evidence as concocted or fabricated and falsified to implicate him in the case. 7. Having appreciated the evidence, the trial Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda) has observed that it is not impossible nor even improbable to see the occurrence of assault from a distance of 300 ft. by P.W.7. P.W.7 saw both the accused and the deceased from a close proximity during the time when the occurrence took place. On a sudden quarrel, as stated, the deceased was chased by the appellant and the deceased rushed through the road, but the appellant dealt blows indiscriminately on the person of the deceased by a Khandasa (a heavy sharp cutting weapon). It has been further stated that the wife of the deceased, P.W.5, was present in the house at the time of the occurrence. She was sleeping. She was awakened up by some children after the occurrence. She has testified that the appellant had asked to transfer the deceased's own house in his name, but since the deceased was not inclined, he picked up quarrel and assaulted the deceased by a Katara. The trial Judge has observed that, P.W.5 has also witnessed the occurrence but for obvious reason, she being the mother of the accused and after having already lost her husband forever, she might not be willing to lose her another son [the appellant]. P.W.5 resiled from her earlier statement only to save her son from the rigors of law. Over and above, on a close reading of her statement, it is seen that she has not disputed about the occurrence but she claimed to have not seen the occurrence, which is palpably false. Immediately after this assumption, the trial Judge has further observed that her evidence does in no manner out-weigh the evidence of P.W.4 and other evidence available on records. The evidence relating to discovery of the weapon of offence has been vouched P.Ws. 4 & 13. They were also witnesses to inquest and to discovery of weapon of offence. 8. According to the trial Judge, P.Ws. The evidence relating to discovery of the weapon of offence has been vouched P.Ws. 4 & 13. They were also witnesses to inquest and to discovery of weapon of offence. 8. According to the trial Judge, P.Ws. 4 & 13 have stated that the accused was arrested from the nearby jungle and during the Police interrogation, he admitted his guilt and disclosed that he had concealed that weapon of offence inside the heap of sand which was located near his house. He [the appellant] led the Police and the witnesses to the place of concealment and brought out the weapon of offence, which was kept inside the sand. The said act of discovery was photographed at the instance of the Investigating Officer. However, during the cross- examination, what P.W.4 has stated is no way support the prosecution case. P.W.4 testified that he has not seen the accused bringing out the weapon from the heap of sand, as he was guarding the dead body at that time. Even he has stated in the cross-examination that in his presence, the weapon of offence was put inside the sand and at the instance of the Police, the process was repeated for the purpose of taking photograph of recovery of weapon. P.W.13 has, however, supported the prosecution case, but according to him, he has not heard the entire statement of the accused for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Then, the trial Judge has inferred that this does not mean that he has not heard the accused stating that he had kept the weapon of offence concealed inside the heap of sand. There is no denial that the concealed weapon was recovered at the appellant's instance. On this point, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is very cogent and categorical. According to him, the accused while was in his custody, confessed his guilt in presence of P.Ws. 4 & 13 and during the examination, the appellant further disclosed that, he had concealed the weapon of offence in front of his house under a sand-heap. The Investigating Officer had recorded his statement. The Investigating Officer seized the said weapon of offence on discovery at the instance of the appellant in presence of P.Ws. 4 & 13 by preparing the seizure list (Ext.13). The Investigating Officer had recorded his statement. The Investigating Officer seized the said weapon of offence on discovery at the instance of the appellant in presence of P.Ws. 4 & 13 by preparing the seizure list (Ext.13). Based on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jeet Singh reported in AIR 1999 SC 293 , the trial Judge has observed that 'the crucial question is not the place was accessible to the others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial whether the concerned place is accessible to the others.' The said observation has been made in relation to the statement that the said weapon of offence was discovered from a public road-side. It has been further observed that, there is no allegation against the Investigating Officer that he is inmical to the appellant or friendly to the informant and as such, the Investigating Officer's statement in the trial falls within the category of reliable evidence. Further, the discovery of weapon of offence, as the fact has been proved by the prosecution. For the said reason, reliability of P.W.7 cannot be questioned. Finally, it has been observed by the trial Judge that the weapon of offence was a heavy sharp cutting weapon and the injuries inflicted by the accused on the vital parts of the deceased had been sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It clearly established the intention of the appellant to cause murder of his father. The act of the appellant falls within culpable homicide amounting to murder. Thus, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced as noted above. 9. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has criticized the judgment under challenge. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has contended that there is no legal evidence to return the finding of conviction. According to him, the entire prosecution case has been demolished by the witnesses whom the prosecution relied heavily. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that, the testimony of P.W.7 is totally untrustworthy in as much as his testimony is mutually destructive and it ruins the other evidence as well. According to him, the entire prosecution case has been demolished by the witnesses whom the prosecution relied heavily. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that, the testimony of P.W.7 is totally untrustworthy in as much as his testimony is mutually destructive and it ruins the other evidence as well. For example, P.W.5 claimed to have been sleeping at the time of occurrence, but it is the consistent plea of the prosecution that there was a big hulla and that attracted the attention of P.W.7. P.W.7 registered the hulla from his residence, which according to him is 300 ft. away, and came to the place of hulla. He found the appellant standing in the threshold and he was quarreling with his father (the deceased). Thereafter, the appellant chased the father and gave three major blows on the back of his person by a Khandasa. According to Mr. Mohanty, Khandasa and Katara are two categories of sharp cutting weapons. Khandasa is like knife as would be evident from Ext.10, the forwarding report that was sent by the S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda for chemical examination. The reference was made to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Ainthapalli, District- Sambalpur. Under Column No.2, at Serial 3, the description of the weapon of offence is available. The same has been described as one blood stained Iron Katara (knife) of total length 51.5 centimeter. It has been also mentioned alongside that the same was produced by the accused. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has contended for the purpose of distinction that, Katara and Khandasa are two different kinds of sharp cutting weapons. What most importantly has been contended by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel is that in the forwarding report, it had been clearly described that one blood stained Iron Katara was sent for the Serological (chemical) examination but neither the said Katara nor the examination report was produced in the trial. For that reason, when P.W.11 came to testify in the trial, he could not be confronted neither was he shown that Katara to opine whether the injuries were possible by such Katara. Withholding of the report is nothing but suppression of the material fact from the trial and as such, the adverse inference has to be drawn. In such backdrop, the question arises that whether P.W.7, the solitary eye witness, on whose evidence, no doubt, the prosecution case is entirely dependent, cannot be relied. Withholding of the report is nothing but suppression of the material fact from the trial and as such, the adverse inference has to be drawn. In such backdrop, the question arises that whether P.W.7, the solitary eye witness, on whose evidence, no doubt, the prosecution case is entirely dependent, cannot be relied. P.W.7 - Hiralal Sandha has testified in the trial that his house situates at a distance of 300 ft. away from the house of the appellant. According to him, at about 2 P.M., he registered hulla of the accused. He went to their house and saw the accused standing near the threshold of their main door. While the deceased was rushing towards his own house and after the deceased covered a small distance, the appellant chased him holding a weapon called Khandasa and obstructed him by standing in his front and dealt blows by means of Khandasa on his chest and neck. Out of fear, P.W.7 left the place of occurrence and informed P.W.3, another son of P.W.1 who filed the information to the Police. According to P.W.7, P.W.3 was sleeping at his residence. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has thereafter drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.7 made during his cross-examination for making further reference. 10. P.W.7 in his cross-examination has stated that their house has a common entrance and courtyard. He and his three brothers live in four different hurts. There had been no house in the vicinity. The road leading to Sudung, Aitapada, Kumbhari and Jaribahal originate from Jaribahal Chowk. According to him, the houses of Nabin Kisan and Mohan Kisan situate near the house of the deceased. He has reiterated that the house of the deceased situate at a distance of about 300 ft. from his house. 11. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he had stated in the statement as recorded U/S. 164 of the Cr.P.C. that he had slept in his house from 12 noon to 2.30 P.M., whereafter on hearing hulla, he came to the spot. According to him, the occurrence took place on Jaribahal-Sudang road. There is no house in the vicinity of that place except our house, at the relevant time Janaki, the mother of the accused was present in their house. Other three brothers of the accused (the appellant) were absent from their house at the relevant time. According to him, the occurrence took place on Jaribahal-Sudang road. There is no house in the vicinity of that place except our house, at the relevant time Janaki, the mother of the accused was present in their house. Other three brothers of the accused (the appellant) were absent from their house at the relevant time. According to him, the length of Khandasa will be about 1 & 1/2 ft. But he has categorically denied the suggestion that he did not see the occurrence or the Police has tutored him. According to him, 'I saw the occurrence of assault on the deceased by the accused from a distance of about 300 ft.' 12. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that, if the testimony of P.W.13 is keenly read, it will be apparent that he did not hear the entire statement of the accused U/S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He even could not say in the trial what was the statement that was recorded by the Police Officer, even though he had put his signature on the statement (Ext.11). He has categorically stated that, he had not seen the occurrence. But he has stated that he heard the accused confessing the guilt and disclosing that he had concealed the weapon of offence. But later on, as pointed out by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel that he intended to obfuscate his statement. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has further submitted that the length of the weapon of assault as per the forwarding report Ext.10 is 51.5 centimeter, which is equivalent to 20.2 inch. Description of the length of the weapon as given by P.W.7 is close to the said length. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has submitted that everything has been stage-managed by the Police. Hence, there is emerged divergence in the description of the weapon of offence, as recorded in the said forwarding report and the testimony of P.W.7. 13. According to P.W.11, the injuries had been caused by a heavy weapon with cutting edge and he had categorically stated in his testimony that he had examined the weapon of offence, i.e. an iron Katara, sent by the Investigating Officer with reference to the Post Mortem examination report and he had opined that all the injuries found over the dead body could be possible by the said weapon. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has contended that P.W.11 has admitted that he has not mentioned in Ext.9, his report, on weapon as referred earlier that whether the weapon of offence had been received in sealed cover or in open condition. But he has stated specifically that he has seen that material object after examination. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel in his final statement has stated that the presence of P.W.7 or his witnessing the transaction of crime is hardly believable in as much as P.W.5 being in the close vicinity, did not hear hulla nor appeared there. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has quite emphatically submitted that the appellant was permitted to testify as D.W.1 in the trial, where he had pleaded that P.W.7 deposed against him, as he was not pulling on well with his father, whom he used to take care, as the other brothers had abandoned him. 15. Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State has stated that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant to the hilt by various evidential materials and there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that some insignificant deviation here and there cannot dislodge the prosecution case. What appears to be absurd may not be so absurd in the real time and place. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate thereafter quite categorically stated that the statement of P.W.7 has been corroborated by P.W.1 (the informant), to some extent, P.W.2 and in particular, P.W.3. That apart, the ocular evidence got corroboration from the Post Mortem report and the evidence of P.W.11, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11 has quite categorically observed that there were four external injuries. The cause of death was shock due to severe haemorrhage and injury to the parts of neck as well as asphyxia, due to injury that was dealt by, in the wind pipe. All those injuries were ante- mortem and homicidal in nature. P.W.11 has categorically opined even in the trial that those injuries might be caused by a heavy weapon with cutting edge. The description, of such weapon as stated by P.W.11, resembled with the description of the weapon of offence as has been discovered at the instance of the appellant from concealment. P.W.11 has categorically opined even in the trial that those injuries might be caused by a heavy weapon with cutting edge. The description, of such weapon as stated by P.W.11, resembled with the description of the weapon of offence as has been discovered at the instance of the appellant from concealment. Therefore, P.W.7's statement that the weapon was Khandasa may not be fatal in as much as someone may describe the weapon in one manner, but when the hard evidence is there and P.W.11 has categorically stated that, he was shown that weapon and injuries were possible by the said weapon. The report (Ext.9) is available on record. The author of the said report, P.W.11, has admitted its contents in the trial. 16. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that non-production of the weapon of offence may not erode the prosecution case, but she has candidly admitted that the production of the weapon as seized would have been much better recourse. So far as the objection as to the discovery as raised by the appellant, Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has admitted that P.W.4 did not support his earlier statement or his signature on the memorandum of seizure. But P.W.13 has quite categorically stated, how the statement was made to the Police Officer and how the appellant steered to the place where the weapon of offence was concealed and brought out. The appellant, to be precise, brought out the said weapon of offence from a heap of sand. 17. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the counsel for the appellant had been searching for loop- holes in the testimony. It has been asserted that the trial Judge did not properly appreciate the statements in the examination-in-chief given by P.W.13. P.W.13 is a reliable witness, as he did not claim, he had witnessed the occurrence and even in the cross-examination, he had stated that the appellant disclosed that he had concealed the weapon of offence. The part he has heard in respect of the statement made to the Police by the appellant, he has vouched in the trial. His statement in the trial that he cannot recollect what was recorded by the Police (Ext.11) cannot mean that such statement was not made. The part he has heard in respect of the statement made to the Police by the appellant, he has vouched in the trial. His statement in the trial that he cannot recollect what was recorded by the Police (Ext.11) cannot mean that such statement was not made. P.W.13 has categorically denied that he did not put the signature on Ext.11 or he had been testifying at the direction of the Police. As regards the location of the concealment, Ms. Patnaik has submitted that, when a weapon is concealed under a heap of sand even by a public road that can be legally accepted as a place of concealment. That cannot be discarded as the place of access. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has further submitted that for purpose of discovery, the statement of P.W.15 (the Investigating Officer) cannot be brushed aside. He has clearly corroborated P.W.13. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge without any shred of doubt. 18. For purpose of appreciation of the rival contentions as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, it would be appropriate to make a short survey of the evidence as available on record. 19. At the outset, we should record our displeasure at the role of the prosecution for not placing the serological report or (the chemical examination report) of the blood-soaked wearing apparels of the appellant, which was seized by the Police in presence of P.W.9 by the seizure list (Ext.7). The seized weapon has not been produced in the trial for no reason assigned. P.W.1 is the informant, who did not see the occurrence, as admitted by him. He got the information from P.W.3-his son. P.W.1-Purandar Nayak has described the weapon of offence as Katara, as learnt from P.W.3. The said description has not been challenged directly but the question was posed whether P.W.1 did come to know about the occurrence from P.W.7. P.W.1, in reply, has stated in the cross-examination that, he had not mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) that he came to know from Hiralal Santha (P.W.7) that during the course of quarrel, the accused had killed the deceased by assaulting with Katara. On scrutiny, it appears that in the examination-in-chief, he did not claim that he knew about the nature of the weapon from P.W.7. 20. On scrutiny, it appears that in the examination-in-chief, he did not claim that he knew about the nature of the weapon from P.W.7. 20. P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1, when he rushed for the place of occurrence after knowing that his father had been fatally assaulted. P.W.2-Rebati Mohan Dev has testified in the trial and stated that he saw the cut injury on the neck of the deceased. During the inquest on the next day, he was present and signed over the inquest report (Ext.2). P.W.2 has further stated that Hiralal Santha told him that the appellant assaulted the deceased by a Katara. He admitted the signature on Ext.2 and denied the suggestion that P.W.7 did not tell him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by Katara. 21. P.W.3- Mantu Nayak is the person to whom P.W.7 reported the occurrence and asked him to inform his father (P.W.1) and other relatives. P.W.3 has stated that on the day of occurrence, at about .30 P.M., he was asleep, when P.W.7 came and made him awake to inform that, the appellant had committed murder of his grandfather, on his advice, he rushed to inform his father in the weekly market at Khantamal. Thereafter, he, in accompaniment of his father, came to the place called Jaribahal Chowk and saw his grandfather lying on the ground with cut injury on his neck and chest. He denied the suggestion contrary to what he was stated in the examination-in-chief. 22. P.W.4- Haresh Kumar Deo had accompanied P.W.1, when he rushed to the place of occurrence, Jaribahal Chowk where he found the body of the deceased lying with cut injuries on his neck and chest with profuse bleeding. The appellant was arrested and he brought out the Katara from the heap of sand and gave the same to the Police, which was then seized. He admitted that he signed the seizure list (Ext.3). He had also signed on the inquest report, which he had identified in the trial. He has categorically stated that P.W.7 told P.W.1 that the appellant had killed the deceased by means of Katara. 23. In the cross-examination, he stood by his statement. He admitted that he signed the seizure list (Ext.3). He had also signed on the inquest report, which he had identified in the trial. He has categorically stated that P.W.7 told P.W.1 that the appellant had killed the deceased by means of Katara. 23. In the cross-examination, he stood by his statement. But he has added something which is very material, and is reproduced hereunder: 'I have not seen when the Katara in question was brought out by the accused from the heap of sand, as I was guarding the dead body of the deceased then. However, the said act was again repeated at the instance of the Police for taking photograph regarding recovery of Katara. He however has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the recovery of Katara in question in the place of concealment. He was cross examined. He has stated that the Katara has not been produced in the Court. In the cross-examination, he has confirmed that Katara was seized in his presence but the said Katara has not been produced in the Court.' 24. P.W.5-Janaki Nayak, the widow of the deceased has testified that at the time of occurrence, she was sleeping at her house, but some children woke her up at about 3 P.M. Then she came to know that her husband had been killed by the appellant. At the instance of the prosecution, P.W.5 was declared hostile and she was cross-examined. But in the cross-examination, she did not give in to the suggestion but denied to have made the statement as shown to be how the statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. (marked with 'X') for purpose of showing it to the Investigating Officer. 25. P.W.6-Swapna Rout is a witness of seizure of sample earth and blood stained earth by preparation of seizure list (Ext.4). In the cross-examination, she has stated that the seizure was made on the following day of occurrence. 26. P.W.7 has been already discussed elaborately. He has stated that the deceased was chased by the appellant and brought to the place of occurrence, when the appellant gave blows on his person by Khandasa on his chest and neck. Out of fear, he left that place, returned to his house and informed P.W.3. 26. P.W.7 has been already discussed elaborately. He has stated that the deceased was chased by the appellant and brought to the place of occurrence, when the appellant gave blows on his person by Khandasa on his chest and neck. Out of fear, he left that place, returned to his house and informed P.W.3. In the cross-examination, he stood by his statement made in the examination-in-chief, however, he added that the occurrence took place in Jaribahal-Sudang road and there is no house in the vicinity of that place. He has testified further that the mother of the appellant was present in their house. The other three brothers were absent during that time. He denied to have stated anything falsely. 27. P.W.8-Heman Ekka is a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deceased by the seizure list (Ext.5). 28. P.W.9-Biswajit Chatterjee, who was attached to Sahaspur Out Post under Laikera Police Station as Constable, testified that the Investigating Officer seized nail clippings, blood sample the cloth of the appellant with blood-stain as produced by Constable Bhimsen Sahoo in his presence. The blood stained garments of the appellant was seized by preparing the seizure list (Ext.7). But in the cross-examination, he has stated that he could not say exactly at that point of time, where the blood stain in the shirt of the appellant was. 29. P.W.10-Bhimsen Sahoo, a Police Constable is the witness of seizure of blood sample of the appellant, which was seized by the seizure list (Ext.6). But he has clearly stated that, he did not sign over the seal of the vials containing the nail clippings and blood sample of the appellant. 30. P.W.11 is one of the sterling witnesses in the prosecution case. P.W.11-Dr. Hrishikesh Nayak carried out the Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found four external injuries over the dead body, which are described in the Post Mortem examination report (Ext.8). He has categorically stated that the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage and injuries to the parts of the neck and also for asphyxia due to the injury in the wind-pipe. He has categorically stated that all such injuries are ante-mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy weapon. He has categorically stated that the cause of death was shock due to haemorrhage and injuries to the parts of the neck and also for asphyxia due to the injury in the wind-pipe. He has categorically stated that all such injuries are ante-mortem in nature and might have been caused by heavy weapon. He has further stated that the I.O. had sent him the weapon of offence, i.e. iron Katara and he after examining the said weapon of offence, opined that the injuries found over the dead body can be possible by the said weapon. Having such recorded/observation, the report (Ext.9) was sent to the Investigating Officer. He denied that he had tampered with the evidence and prepared the report on instruction of the Police. 31. P.W.12-Chintamani Pradhan took the charge of investigation from P.K. Tandi of Sahaspur Out Post. He had also re- examined the witnesses already examined. After receiving the Post Mortem report, he had sent the weapon of offence to the concerned Surgeon for his opinion. He had arranged for recording of the statement of P.W.7 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He admitted the forwarding report (Ext.10) in the evidence. Thereafter, he filed the Charge Sheet. 32. In the cross-examination, he had clearly stated that, he had not examined the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. According to him, he sent all the materials for chemical examination from the Police Malkhana and stated that the weapon of offence was sealed by the concerned autopsy surgeon after its examination. He denied to have tutored any witness. 33. P.W.13- Ashok Kumar Deo has stated in the trial that on the following day of occurrence, i.e. 26.08.2009, the Police visited the village. He was called to help them in the investigation. He went with the Police to the spot and found the deceased was lying dead with cut injuries on his neck and chest. The Police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2). He admitted his signature on the inquest report. Thereafter, the Police went to search the appellant in a nearby jungle and apprehended him. In his presence, the accused disclosed that he had committed murder by a Katara (sharp cutting heavy weapon) and he had kept the said Katara concealed inside the heap of sand near his house. He admitted his signature on the inquest report. Thereafter, the Police went to search the appellant in a nearby jungle and apprehended him. In his presence, the accused disclosed that he had committed murder by a Katara (sharp cutting heavy weapon) and he had kept the said Katara concealed inside the heap of sand near his house. Then, the accused (the appellant) led the Police and the witnesses to the place of concealment and brought out the Katara from inside the sand. The Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant in his presence. P.W.13 identified the signature on Ext.11. His cross-examination has already been discussed. Therefore, the further details are not required to be noted. 34. P.W.14-Kishore Kisan has not disclosed anything of material importance. 35. P.W.15-Pradip Kumar Tandi was the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police on the day of occurrence and he took up the investigation after due endorsement on the F.I.R. (Ext.1). During the investigation, as is stated briefly, he had examined the witnesses, visited the spot, deputed the Police personnel to guard the spot and he gave the requisition for the Scientific Officer, Sambalpur to visit the spot and submit a report. On the next day, the Scientific Officer visited the spot. He had also prepared the site map. He had arranged to take photograph of the deceased on the spot by a professional photographer. He himself carried out the inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext.2) in presence of the witnesses. He has stated that on 26.08.2009, the Scientific Officer arrived at the spot and he had collected blood stained earth and sample earth and handed over to him. Those samples were seized in presence of the witnesses by preparing the seizure list (Ext.4). 36. Having the information that the accused (the appellant) was hiding inside a nearby forest, he searched and arrested the accused. During the search, P.W.15 was accompanied by witnesses, namely A.K. Deo and H.K. Deo, P.Ws. 4 & 13. After arrest of the appellant from the nearby forest, according to P.W.15, he confessed his guilt and disclosed that he had concealed the weapon of offence in front of their house under the heap of sand. During the search, P.W.15 was accompanied by witnesses, namely A.K. Deo and H.K. Deo, P.Ws. 4 & 13. After arrest of the appellant from the nearby forest, according to P.W.15, he confessed his guilt and disclosed that he had concealed the weapon of offence in front of their house under the heap of sand. He recorded his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and proceeded to recover the said weapon (Katara) from the place of concealment and his activities were photographed (vide Ext.13). P.W.15 also seized the weapon of offence in presence of the witnesses and prepared the seizure list. 37. The appellant was sent to Sahapur C.H.C. for the purpose of collecting his blood sample and nail clippings. The Medical Officer, Sahapur C.H.C. collected the blood sample and nail clippings of the appellant and seized those by the seizure list (Ext.6). 38. P.W.15 has confirmed that P.W.5- Janak Nath had stated to him that the appellant picked up the quarrel on the day of occurrence at about 1.15 to 1.30 P.M. and assaulted her husband by means of Katara. However, P.W.5 resiled from that statement, but P.W.13 has confirmed it. It is well known that the statement made to the Police by an accused cannot be accepted in the evidence, in view of Section-25 of the Indian Evidence Act. But the disclosure statement is admissible to the extent as protected by Section-27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the trial judge had correctly admitted the disclosure statement made by the appellant (Ext.11). 39. The appellant had stated in the trial that he had concealed the weapon of offence (Katara) under a heap of sand and he would be able to find out the weapon. Accordingly, the appellant was taken to the place of occurrence and there, he recovered the weapon of offence from the state of concealment under a heap of sand. Therefore, according to us, the statement of discovery and the discovery of the weapon of assault have been correctly admitted by the trial judge. Notwithstanding the fact that P.W.4 had resiled partly from his earlier statement, P.W.4 has admitted the statement relating to the concealment and as such, there is no judicial embargo to accept this piece of evidence for any purpose. 40. On scrutiny, what has surfaced is that only P.W.7 is the eye witness. Notwithstanding the fact that P.W.4 had resiled partly from his earlier statement, P.W.4 has admitted the statement relating to the concealment and as such, there is no judicial embargo to accept this piece of evidence for any purpose. 40. On scrutiny, what has surfaced is that only P.W.7 is the eye witness. But P.W.7 did not take any further action except giving the information to P.W.3, about the occurrence. It is quite understandable that someone who saw the brutal murder would naturally be perplexed, frightened and a little bit apprehensive. But on a close scrutiny of the statement, we find no incongruity or contradiction, though P.W.7 has stated that the weapon used in causing the murder is Khandasa, but all other witnesses stated the weapon to be a Katara. This difference is not material, as after a long gap, the memory may not assist accuracies. However, the weapon of offence had been discovered through a legal process and such discovery has been admitted in the evidence. Hence, this Court is not barred from accepting the evidence and the description of the weapon as used in causing the murder by the appellant. 41. We find the chain substantively complete. P.W.7 saw the occurrence, informed P.W.3, who, in turn, informed P.W.1, who lodged the information to the Police after reaching to the place of occurrence and having seen his father lying dead. We cannot find any material to disbelieve P.W.7. It is true that non-production of the Katara or the blood soaked apparels of the deceased are unaccepted, but their absence in the evidence cannot take out the substance of the prosecution case. The investigating agency had acted insensibly, callously and irresponsibly by not producing the chemical examination report in the trial, in respect of the blood stained earth and blood stained apparel of the deceased vis-a-vis the blood stained apparels of the accused person (the appellant). But the evidence of P.W.11 has definitely emboldened the trial judge to return the finding of the conviction. 42. The appellant (D.W.1) tried to show that P.W.7 had a hostile relation with his father and since he was taking care of his father, P.W.7 might have been annoyed with him. This piece of evidence has been left at the lurch, as nobody else has corroborated that, even though P.W.5 was available in the trial. 42. The appellant (D.W.1) tried to show that P.W.7 had a hostile relation with his father and since he was taking care of his father, P.W.7 might have been annoyed with him. This piece of evidence has been left at the lurch, as nobody else has corroborated that, even though P.W.5 was available in the trial. No such question was ever put to her about the relation of P.W.7 and the deceased or the appellant. The said evidence cannot be accepted by the Court for purpose of discarding the unblemished evidence of P.W.7. 43. It is to be noted at this juncture that the evidence of P.W.7 has got corroboration from P.Ws. 3, 1 & 11. Discovery of the weapon of assault, at the instance of the appellant, is one of the incriminating evidence protected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which can be used for re-assurance. Thus, on cumulative reading of the evidence, as noted, even after the prosecution's omission, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the appellant. It is none but the appellant, who had committed the murder of his father. In Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) etc. reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 the Apex Court stated the law that as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of single witness. That is the logic, but if there is doubt about the said testimony, the Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that the evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section-134 of the Evidence Act. The test is therefore, whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 44. The way, the transaction of crime had taken place, it amply shows that it was not on the spurt of moment. Moreover, on the body of the deceased, there were four serious bleeding injuries. Thus, it cannot be stated that on sudden rage, the said act of homicide was committed. Therefore, in our considered view, no benefit can be extended to the appellant. 45. Moreover, on the body of the deceased, there were four serious bleeding injuries. Thus, it cannot be stated that on sudden rage, the said act of homicide was committed. Therefore, in our considered view, no benefit can be extended to the appellant. 45. Having observed thus, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence. 46. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 47. Send down the LCRs. forthwith.