JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused person under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.107/2014 by the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, additional SI for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on16.06.2014 at about 5:30 pm, complainant Mahadeep Singh (PW-9) lodged a complaint in Police Station Khadgawan stating therein that on the fateful day, at 3:00 pm, he and his mother Sonkunwar (hereinafter called as 'deceased') went to a house under construction. Deceased was standing in courtyard whereas PW-9/complainant went to fetch water from nearby pond to pour the water on the walls of the house and when he returned, he saw the appellant from 20 meters distance away while pressing hands, legs & neck of the deceased and on seeing him, appellant fled away from the spot. When he reached there, he saw his mother (deceased) lying dead. On the basis of complaint made by PW- 9 Mahadeep, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-4 and FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-5. Vide Ex.P-7, spot map was prepared. Inquest proceedings were initiated vide Ex.P.1 wherein name of the appellant was mentioned. Thereafter, dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to C.H.C. Khadgawan where Dr. S. Kujur (P.W.13) conducted post-mortem examination and gave report vide Ex. P-8A, according to which, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of throttling and death was homicidal in nature. During course of examination, appellant was taken into custody vide Ex.P-2. 3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 of IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused person abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. The appellant/accused person abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 09 documents and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness but exhibited one document i.e. Ex.D-1 statement of Ku. Urmila. 5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused person for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal, inasmuch, it did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to him, case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye-witness (PW- 9) Mahadeep Singh whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not reliable and his evidence is also not corroborated by independent witnesses. The prosecution has not been able to prove motive of the offence and that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. On these premises, it was urged that the appellant may be acquitted of the charge while allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit that case of the prosecution rests upon the direct evidence of eye-witness account of PW-9 Mahadeep, son of the deceased. The evidence of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh was fully supported by other prosecution witnesses namely PW-3 Urmila, PW-5 Kunjal Singh, PW-6 Pitamber & PW-7 Sukhwariya Bai. The prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court, based on the evidence led by the prosecution, was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant by its well merited judgment, which does not call for interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Firstly, we shall deal with the question as to whether the death of the deceased Sonkunwar was homicidal in nature or not. The trial Court, based on the statement of Dr. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Firstly, we shall deal with the question as to whether the death of the deceased Sonkunwar was homicidal in nature or not. The trial Court, based on the statement of Dr. S. Kujur (PW-13) who conducted postmortem examination and gave his report (Ex.P-8A), in which, cause of death of deceased was Asphyxia on account of throttling mode of death was homicidal in nature, recorded a finding to the effect that the death of the deceased person was homicidal in nature, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 10. Now, we shall deal with the next question as to whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question ? Motive of offence 11. The trial Court in paras 25 & 26 of the impugned judgment has discussed in detail about the motive of the appellant. From the evidence of PW-3 Urmila, PW-6 Pitamber and PW-9 Mahadeep Singh, it is evident that the appellant used to follow the deceased, abused her in filthy language and once appellant entered the house of deceased at night with ill-intention, for which, meeting was convened in the village which was attended by the appellant. Thus, from the unrebutted evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it transpires that the appellant was having enmity with the deceased and her family members. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant had motive for commission of murder of the deceased. Testimony of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh (eye-witness) 12. PW-9 Mahadeep Singh is an eye-witness and also son of the deceased. Whether conviction can be based on sole eye-witness? It has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2015) 1 SCC 776 that when several people participate in commission of an offence with deadly weapons and attack one or more persons with an intention to kill them then the witnesses who are closely related to victim(s) are not expected to describe the incident in graphic detail and with such precision that which member and in what manner he participated in the commission of offence. Their evidence is required to be appreciated in its totality. Paragraph 30 is relevant and is reproduced herein under:- “30. Their evidence is required to be appreciated in its totality. Paragraph 30 is relevant and is reproduced herein under:- “30. In our considered view, when several people participate in commission of an offence with deadly weapons and attack one or more persons with an intention to kill them then the witnesses who are closely related to the victim(s) are not expected to describe the incident in graphic detail and with such precision that which member and in what manner he participated in the commission of offence. Their evidence is required to be appreciated in its totality.” 13. Yet, in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Satveer and others, (2015) 9 SCC 44 , it has been observed by the Supreme Court that evidence of sole witness needs to be considered with caution and held in paragraphs 12 & 14 as under:- “12.........The evidence of the sole witness thus needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material and further, such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. As regards his version about the incident, the manner in which it statedly occurred, the involvement of the respondents--whether all or some of them, we have nothing on record which could possibly allow us to test the veracity of the version of the sole witness. To us, it is doubtful whether PW2 Mewa Ram could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. The movements of Akash are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness. Since PW2 Mewa Ram is the sole witness and the entire case depends on his testimony, we have looked for even minutest detail which could possibly lend corroboration. We have however not been able to locate any such material. In order to evoke confidence and place intrinsic reliance on the testimony of this sole witness, we tried to find some corroboration on material particulars, which unfortunately is lacking. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of Akash was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of Akash was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others. And importantly, presence of respondents--whether some or all of them, has not been fully established. ” 14. Again, in the matter of Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2016) 3 SCC 26 , the Supreme Court has observed that the Court may act on testimony of single witness though uncorroborated provided that testimony of single witness is found reliable and held at paragraph 11 as under:- “11. It is well-settled that the court may act on a testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the testimony of single witness is found reliable. Trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing PW-6 found him wholly reliable and trustworthy and held that evidence of Sandipan Majumdar-PW6 cannot be doubted as far as the role attributed to A-1 to A-6 except Jishu Jain is concerned, which was affirmed by the High Court. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below as to the reliability of PW-6 and to record the conviction. 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships in the above referred matters, it is quite clear that case of the prosecution is based on the sole testimony of P.W.9 Mahadeep Singh, son of the deceased, who has testified that on the date of incident at 3.00 pm, he and his mother (deceased) went to new house for pouring water on the walls of the house, his mother (deceased) was standing in courtyard and he went to pond for fetching water and on returning, he was about 20 meters away from the place of incident, he saw the accused/appellant Ram Singh thrown his mother (deceased) on the ground and was strangulating her neck. However, on seeing this witness, appellant ran away from there and when he reached there, he saw his mother (deceased) lying dead. However, on seeing this witness, appellant ran away from there and when he reached there, he saw his mother (deceased) lying dead. Thereafter, he informed about the incident to his neighbours i.e. PW-5 Kunjal Singh & PW-7 Sukhwariya Bai and then informed to his father (PW-6) Pitamber, one Chatrapal, PW-2 Narbad Singh and PW-8 Jai Mangal Singh. Thereafter, he along with PW-2 Narbad Singh went to the Police Station and lodged a report against the appellant. In crossexamination in para 25, he has stated that he has seen the appellant strangulating the neck of his mother (deceased) at a distance of 20 meters. PW-9 Mahadeep Singh has been subjected to crossexamination at length but nothing has been elicited from him by the defence to render his evidence untrustworthy or doubtful. As such, in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Nand Kumar, Satveer and others & Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu (supra), there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh which was supported by other prosecution witnesses as well as medical evidence also. 16. Further, Kunjal Singh (PW-5) has stated before the Court that on the fateful day, he had seen the appellant going towards Godra on bicycle. Then PW-9 Mahadeep Singh came to him by shouting that appellant was throttling the neck of his mother (deceased) and is fleeing from the spot. Thereafter, he (this witness) took water from his home and started going to the spot, however, on the way, he saw the appellant was running from his front side at a distance of 50 meters and PW-9 Mahadeep was chasing him. He has further stated that when he reached to the spot, he was alone on the spot and after 10-15 minutes, PW-9 Mahadeep came there along with his father PW-6 Pitamber and his sisters namely Sunita and PW-3 Urmila and PW-2 Narbad Singh, PW8 Jaimangal Singh and Chatrapal also came there where PW-9 Mahadeep told them about the incident that appellant has committed murder of his mother (deceased) by throttling. Though, PW-2 Narbad Singh has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile but his statement with respect to the fact that he went to the police station Khadgawan along with PW-9 Mahadeep Singh and at the behest of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh, ultimately, the police registered the case against the appellant, cannot be discarded. 17. Though, PW-2 Narbad Singh has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile but his statement with respect to the fact that he went to the police station Khadgawan along with PW-9 Mahadeep Singh and at the behest of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh, ultimately, the police registered the case against the appellant, cannot be discarded. 17. PW-3 Urmila and PW-6 Pitamber have supported the prosecution case by stating that they have been informed about the incident by PW-9 Mahadeep Singh that the appellant has caused death of deceased by throttling. 18. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that due to previous enmity with the deceased, appellant was following the deceased and on the fateful day, on finding alone the deceased at the house under construction, appellant went there and committed her murder by strangulating, which was seen by PW-9 Mahadeep and on seeing PW-9 Mahadeep Singh, appellant fled away from there. Moreover, the evidence of PW-9 Mahadeep Singh also finds corroboration from the contents of FIR (Ex.P-5) which was lodged promptly i.e. within a span of two hours and medical evidence of Autopsy Surgeon (PW-13) S. Kujur and the postmortem report Ex.P-8 coupled with the evidence of PW-3 Urmila, PW-5 Kunjal Singh, PW-6 Pitamber & PW-8 Jaimangal Singh. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and held that it was the appellant who has caused death of deceased by throttling due to which deceased- Sonkunwar died. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 19. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.