JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. This appeal was earlier heard on 07.05.2024 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. After hearing the Appellant and the State, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.115 of 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro). The convict-appellant, thereafter preferred a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.2989 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 15 th July, 2025, after setting aside the judgment of the High Court, had remanded the matter for consideration afresh as it was held that there should be independent appreciation of the facts by the High Court. Thus, this appeal was listed before us for fresh hearing on 8 th August, 2025. 2. This appeal was listed on 8 th August, 2025 under the heading “For Hearing” . Respective counsel for the Appellant and the State argued their cases at length and upon conclusion of their arguments, judgment was reserved. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, at the very outset submitted that the circumstances, which surfaced while examining the witnesses, have not been put before this Appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The incriminating material, surfaced in evidence of P.W.5 and relied upon by the Court has not been put to this appellant, which caused grave prejudice to him, as a result of which the judgment by the Trial Court is vitiated. He further submitted that P.W.5 has stated that Champa Devi has also seen the occurrence, but this Champa Devi has not been examined. Other alleged witnesses have also not been examined, which creates a doubt about the prosecution case and involvement of this appellant. The appellant is, thus, entitled for benefit of doubt due to withholding of witnesses, who ought to have been produced. It is argued that the entire prosecution case is based upon the story put forth by the deaf and dumb daughter of the deceased and the appellant. Surprisingly, P.W.5, who was also present there, her statement has not been recorded as Fardbeyan. The deaf and dumb daughter of the deceased and this appellant, has also not been produced as a witness, which is fatal for the prosecution. Surprisingly, P.W.5, who was also present there, her statement has not been recorded as Fardbeyan. The deaf and dumb daughter of the deceased and this appellant, has also not been produced as a witness, which is fatal for the prosecution. He lastly submitted that the place of occurrence has also not been established by the prosecution. He submitted that the entire case is based on the testimony of P.W.5 and the testimony of P.W.5 is not believable, thus, this appeal needs to be allowed. These are the only points raised by the counsel for the appellant during arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer of the appellant and contended that none of the points raised can be considered in his favour as the evidence will clearly lead to the unimpeachable conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt that it is this appellant, who has committed murder of the deceased. Non-examination of some of the witnesses cannot be said to be fatal and cannot automatically lead to acquittal of this appellant as other witnesses have proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Non-examination of the child witness is not important as she is not the author of the fardbeyan. The Investigating Officer has substantially proved the place of occurrence and so also the other witnesses. 5. In order to appreciate the arguments of the parties, I have gone through the records of this case. 6. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 25 th April, 2018 and order of sentence dated 27 th April, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in S.T. Case No.115 of 2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 /201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Section 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 7. As a First Appellate Court, this Court has to appreciate the evidence on record. The evidence should be scrutinized in detail as this Court is the final Court of fact. 7. As a First Appellate Court, this Court has to appreciate the evidence on record. The evidence should be scrutinized in detail as this Court is the final Court of fact. Being the First Appellate Court, this Court has to arrive at a conclusion after appreciating the evidence and after going through the record independently. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 9 SCC 631 had expounded that as a Court of First Appeal, the High Court concerned must appreciate the evidence-on-record. Similarly, in the case of Badam Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 792 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court must scrutinize the evidence in detail, being the final Court of fact. In yet another judgment, in the case of Majjal versus State of Haryana reported in (2013) 6 SCC 798 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 7 thereof has observed as under: - “7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court’s concurrence with the trial court’s view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the matter. Since this exercise is not conducted by the High Court, the appeal deserves to be remanded for a fresh hearing after setting aside the impugned order.” 8. Considering the well settled proposition of law, this appeal is being decided. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 9. The fardbeyan, which led to registering of the First Information Report is at the instance of one Mathura Prasad Mahto. He is the brother of the deceased. Considering the well settled proposition of law, this appeal is being decided. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION 9. The fardbeyan, which led to registering of the First Information Report is at the instance of one Mathura Prasad Mahto. He is the brother of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to the accused about 17-18 years back and there was a girl child Anju Bala Kumari born out of the wedlock, who is a special child. The accused in 2007 solemnised a second marriage with Tulia Devi. It is alleged that on 16.12.2010 when the informant was on duty, at about 07.00 p.m. he received an information over phone that the accused has caused the death of the deceased by drowning her in a village pond and then after taking out the dead body from water was trying to take it some-where but on seeing the arrival of the villagers, he fled away. It is alleged that the daughter of the deceased was also present there who had seen the entire occurrence and since she was speech impaired, she described the occurrence by sign and gesture. It is alleged that when he with other members of the family went to the village- Bagjobra, he saw Malti Devi, Rukwa Devi and neice Anju Bala Kumari present there who described the entire occurrence that at 12:30 PM the deceased went with her daughter for bathing in the pond after which the accused followed her and finding the deceased alone, drowned the deceased in the pond and killed her. The accused was in misconception that since the neice was dumb, she will not be able to tell anything about the occurrence and due to arrival of the villages the accused ran away. It has been alleged that the accused was trying to conceal or burry the dead body. On the aforesaid fardbeyan First Information Report, being Nawadih P.S. Case No. 89 of 2010 was registered. PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL 10. After the First Information Report was registered, the police investigated the offence and finding the case to be true, filed chargesheet against this appellant under Section 302 /201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE being Chargesheet No.6/2011. The appellant, before the Trial Court, after commitment, denied the charges against him and pleaded not guilty, as such, he was put on trial. 11. The appellant, before the Trial Court, after commitment, denied the charges against him and pleaded not guilty, as such, he was put on trial. 11. On 21.04.2011, the Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 /201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The appellant was put on trial. Altogether, 9 (nine) witnesses were examined in this case, who are P.W.1 Kauleshwar Mahto, P.W.2 Ratilal Mahto, P.W.3 Moti Lal Mahto, P.W.4 Baijnath Mahto, P.W.5 Sanju Kumari, P.W.6 Gurdayal Mahto, P.W.7 Mathura Prasad Mahto (informant), P.W.8 Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh and P.W.9 Subodh Ekka (Investigating Officer). Further, the Fardbeyan was exhibited as Exhibit 1; Seizure List as Exhibit 2; Postmortem Report as Exhibit 3 and the formal FIR as Exhibit 4. All these documents were exhibited without objection from the side of the defence. 12. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his statement was recorded. The appellant refused to lead defence evidence. 13. The Trial Court, thereafter, considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302 /201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES 14. The evidence of the witnesses runs in the following manner:- P.W.1 Kauleshwar Mahto is the brother of the deceased. He stated that on 15.12.2010 at 1:00 PM, Mahru Mahto killed his sister Jayanti Devi by strangulating her and drowning her in water in the village pond. When the villagers saw Mahru Mahto, he ran away. He was informed by Rama Mahto so he went to the police station. Mathura Prasad had given the report in the police station and he had gone with him. The statement of Mathura Mahto was written in front of him by the police, which he recognized. The same was marked as Exhibit 1. He stated that in his presence the police seized Jayanti Devi’s blue coloured Saree. The seizure list was prepared in his presence by the police, which he recognizes. As per him, the same was signed by him and Ratilal Mahto which was marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, the witness stated that it is not true that he is giving false evidence. It is not true that he is accusing Mahru Mahto because he remarried. As per him, the same was signed by him and Ratilal Mahto which was marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, the witness stated that it is not true that he is giving false evidence. It is not true that he is accusing Mahru Mahto because he remarried. P.W.2 Ratilal Mahto is the brother of the deceased who stated that on 15.12.2010 at about 12.00 noon, Mahru Mahto's daughter, who is speech impaired, informed that Mahru Mahto had killed his wife Jamni Devi by strangulating her. The body was taken to the police station. He identified Mahru Mahto in the Court. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was not ill and neither was she being treated for 10-15 years. It is not that Mahru Mahto was not at home at the time of the incident. The deceased’s daughter is his niece. He used to meet her two-three times a year. He has not studied about sign language. Kauleshwar Mahto, Moti Lal Mahto were there when the dumb child was telling about the incident. He states that he is not giving false statement because he is the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 Moti Lal Mahto stated that on 15.12.2010 at 12.00 noon, Mahru Mahno's dumb daughter said that Mahru Mahto killed his wife by strangulating her. He is present in the Court and identified Mahru Mahto. The police prepared the seizure list in front of him. He further stated that Mahru Mahto had re-married. In cross – examination, he stated that Jayanti Devi had eye problem since 10-12 years. She did not have diabetes. As per his knowledge, earlier three children of Jayanti Devi had died. He denied the suggestion that his aunt had given medicine to Jayanti to make her infertile and told Mahru Mahto to marry again. He had not said anything like he would not let Mahru Mahto rule because he had 2 children from his second marriage. He stated that he had no training of the sign language. He stated that he is not giving false statement to implicate the accused. P.W.4 Baijnath Mahto is a resident of the same village from where the deceased came. He stated that on 15.12.2010 at 12.30 pm, Mahru Mahto strangulated the deceased to death by drowning her in water of Baghjogra. He identified Mahru Mahto in Court and stated that Mahru Mahto used to beat Jayanti Devi repeatedly. P.W.4 Baijnath Mahto is a resident of the same village from where the deceased came. He stated that on 15.12.2010 at 12.30 pm, Mahru Mahto strangulated the deceased to death by drowning her in water of Baghjogra. He identified Mahru Mahto in Court and stated that Mahru Mahto used to beat Jayanti Devi repeatedly. In cross – examination, he stated that the deceased was Mahru Mahto's first wife. Mahru Mahto is from his clan. He has no quarrel with the accused. He is not making false statements because of some quarrel with the accused. P.W.5 Sanju Kumari stated that on 15.12.2010 at 12.00 noon, deceased went to take bath in the pond when Mahru Mahto threw her in the water and strangulated her and sat on her body and she died. She and her sister-in-law Champa Devi had seen this incident. The witness identified Mahru Mahto, who was present in the court. She also stated that Jayanti Devi's dumb daughter was also present at the scene of the incident. In cross – examination, she stated that Jayanti Devi went to take bath alone and she had gone to her field to bring paddy. When Jayanti Devi screamed, she reached the place of occurrence and saw the incident. She further stated that all the people of the village take bath in that pond. There are always 10- 12 people there during the day. She stated that it is not true that Jayanti Devi died by drowning while taking bath and due to village rivalry, she is giving false testimony in the Court against the accused. P.W.6 Gurdayal Mahto stated that the deceased is his cousin. She was married to Mahru Mahto 17-18 years ago. Mahru Mahto is a resident of village Bagjobra. The deceased gave birth to a daughter Anju Kumari who is 10 years old and is dumb. Mahru Mahto re-married Tulia Devi 3 years ago. After marriage Mahru Mahto started harassing his cousin and tried to remove her from his life. He further stated that the incident happened on 15.12.2010 at 12 noon. The deceased had gone to the pond with her daughter to take bath. Mahru came from behind and while bathing strangulated her and drowned her in water and she died. He tried to pick up the dead body and hide it but people around raised alarm. He identified Mahru Mahto in the court. The deceased had gone to the pond with her daughter to take bath. Mahru came from behind and while bathing strangulated her and drowned her in water and she died. He tried to pick up the dead body and hide it but people around raised alarm. He identified Mahru Mahto in the court. In cross – examination, he stated that he is the brother-in- law of Mahru Mahto. His house is approximately 15-16 houses away from Mahru Mahto's house. He was not with Mahru Mahto at the time of the incident. He reached there after hearing about the incident. He stated that he has given him statement on the basis of what he heard from people. He further stated that he does not know whether there is any other pond in Mahru Mahto's village other than “Hirwa Pain”. He denied the suggestion that he has given false testimony because he is the brother of the deceased and that the accused has performed second marriage. P.W.7 Mathura Prasad Mahto is the informant. He stated that his sister Jayanti Devi was married to Mahru Mahto in Bagjobara village 17-18 years ago and dowry was also given in the marriage. Out of their wedlock a girl child was born, who is now 10 years old. She is deaf and dumb and her legs are also infirm. After the birth of the girl, his sister's husband started harassing her and told her that he would remarry. Thereafter, Mahru Mahto tried to marry Tulia Devi due to which he lodged an FIR in the police station and they stopped the marriage but after a month Mahru Mahto got married again. Thereafter, Mahru Mahto harassed his sister. He stated that the incident happened on 15.12.10. at 12.30 pm. He was informed about the incident in the late evening. Baijnath Mahto had called him. It was informed over phone that Mahru Mahto killed her sister by strangulating her and drowning her in water. He killed her in “Hirwa Pain”. Manju Kumari and Champa Devi had seen the incident. Manju Kumari and Champa Devi asked the accused why he was doing so, then he threatened them to flee or else he would kill all of them. Then they ran away to the village and raised alarm that Mahru Mahto killed his wife Jayanti Devi by strangulating her in “Hirwa pain”. 10-12 people from the village went to see. Manju Kumari and Champa Devi asked the accused why he was doing so, then he threatened them to flee or else he would kill all of them. Then they ran away to the village and raised alarm that Mahru Mahto killed his wife Jayanti Devi by strangulating her in “Hirwa pain”. 10-12 people from the village went to see. By then Mahru Mahto tried to hide the body at an unknown place, but when the villagers reached there, he ran from there. The police took his statement which he acknowledged. The seizure list of seized cloth was also prepared. In cross examination, he stated that his sister had no health issues. He had not filed any case regarding harassment. He cannot tell the number of the FIR he filed regarding Mahru Mahto's second marriage. No case was lodged. He had narrated these to the station in-charge. He had not told the police that the incident was witnessed by his relatives Manju Kumari and Champa Devi. He had not told the police that after seeing the incident Manju Kumari and Champa Devi had asked the accused why he was doing so, then he said that if you people do not leave, he will kill them too, and on this they ran away to the village. When he went there, he saw his sister dead. He denied the suggestion that his sister Jayanti Devi died by drowning while taking bath and that the people of the village are implicating Mahru Mahto due to enmity and he was supporting them. P.W.8 Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh is the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination. He stated that on 16.12.2010, he was posted as a medical officer SDH, Chas. On that day at 1.00 P.M., he conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Jamanti Devi @ Chiriya W/o Maharu Mahto. The body was brought and identified by 3/14 Choukidar Naresh Turi and 4/1 Choukidar Dalo Mahato. He found rigor mortis present in all four limbs, tongue inside mouth partly open, eyes closed. Externally- Abrasion left side of neck about 1/2" x 1/3", swelling left side of neck about 1/2" x 1/2", Abrasion left elbow 1/2" x 1/3". Abrasion back of left shoulder on scapula about 1 and 1/2" x 1/3" while persistent fine froth coming out of mouth. Externally- Abrasion left side of neck about 1/2" x 1/3", swelling left side of neck about 1/2" x 1/2", Abrasion left elbow 1/2" x 1/3". Abrasion back of left shoulder on scapula about 1 and 1/2" x 1/3" while persistent fine froth coming out of mouth. On dissection: - Neck- larynx and trachea contain white fine froth, hyoid bone intact, heart- right side of heart full of blood, left side empty. Lungs- congested balloon cut section exudes frothy blood stain fluid. Liver, spleen and kidney congested, uterus small and non-gravid, stomach- contains about 100 ml water, Bladder- partly empty, chest- NAD (nothing abnormal denoted). Skull-intact; Brain- NAD; Cause of death- Asphyxia as a result of drowning. Time elapsed since death to post mortem examination- within 24 hours. This P.M. report is prepared by him and bears his signature which was marked Exhibit 3. In cross examination, he stated that in case of drowning the water was inhaled from the mouth and nose, in the lungs and stomach which caused the damage to respiratory system leading to death. P.W.9 Subodh Ekka is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on 16.12.2010, he was posted at Nawadih Police Station and was given the charge of investigation of this case. He deposed about preparation of inquest report. During the investigation, he went to village Baghjobara and seized a blue colored saree of the deceased from the place of occurrence and a seizure list which was prepared in front of local witnesses Kaleshwar Mahato and Ratilal Mahato. After this, the re-statement of the informant and statement of witnesses Kauleshwar Mahato, Ratilal Mahato, Gurudayal Mahato and Motilal Mahato were also recorded at the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of witnesses Sanju Kumari and Baijnath Mahato. He also gave the description of the place of occurrence. After that, he had obtained the Postmortem Report from the Subdivisional hospital Chas and recorded it in the case diary. He also obtained the Supervision Report of the case and after completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet bearing No. 06/2011 dated 30.01.2011 against the accused under Section 302 , 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in the court. He stated that the formal First Information Report was written by him and signed by the Officer in-charge Shyam Kishore Mahto which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also deposed about the place of occurrence. He stated that the formal First Information Report was written by him and signed by the Officer in-charge Shyam Kishore Mahto which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also deposed about the place of occurrence. He stated that during the investigation, the name of Mahru Mahto's dumb daughter has come up as an eyewitness. He stated that witnesses Kaleshwar Mahto, Ratilal Mahto, Motilal and Baijnath Mahto have testified on the basis of Mahru Mahto's dumb daughter Anju Bala Kumari's disclosure. He stated that he had tried to record the statement of Anju Bala Kumari but he could not understand her language. He had not contacted any person who knew her sign language. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES 15. Now, on analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I observe the following. From the evidence of P.W.1, especially paragraph 2 of his statement, where he stated that Rama Mahto had informed him about the occurrence, it is clear that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence of commission of murder. He is the witness to the seizure and he has also stated and proved that it is Mathura Prasad Mahto, who is the author of the Fardbeyan and the same was recorded in his presence. From the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3, especially examination- in-chief, it is clear that they are also not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The fact, which emerges from analysis of their statements is that they had come to know about the occurrence from the speech impaired daughter of the deceased, that the appellant has killed the deceased. They are also a hear- say witness. From the evidence of P.W.4, I find that there cannot be any positive conclusion which can be drawn from his evidence to suggest that he has seen the occurrence. Neither has he stated that he has seen the occurrence nor he stated that he has not seen it. Thus, in absence of his clear statement that he has seen the occurrence, it cannot considered that he is an eye witness. From analyzing the evidence of P.W.5, I have no doubt that she is the eye witness to the occurrence. From her statement, it is clear that she was at the place of occurrence. Thus, in absence of his clear statement that he has seen the occurrence, it cannot considered that he is an eye witness. From analyzing the evidence of P.W.5, I have no doubt that she is the eye witness to the occurrence. From her statement, it is clear that she was at the place of occurrence. She stated that it is this appellant, who had drown the deceased in water and pressed her neck and sat over the deceased and got her drowned. She also identified the appellant in Court. In her cross- examination, she stated that the deceased went to take bath and this witness was in her field and had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the scream of the deceased. This also suggests that when the deceased shouted, she reached the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. This statement, which is in her cross-examination, extracted by the defence, clearly suggests that she went to the place of occurrence and had seen the entire occurrence. She clearly denies that the deceased accidentally got drowned while bathing. From her evidence, there is nothing to disbelieve her nor there is any material to disbelieve that she is not the eye witness. Though she stated that there was another lady namely Champa Devi, but non-examination of Champa Devi will not make this witness unreliable. From the tenor of the cross-examination of this witness, it is clear that the defence is also admitting that the death of the deceased is due to drowing. In cross-examination, it has also come that she rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the scream of the deceased and had seen the entire occurrence. Her statement that the deceased over powered and her neck was pressed by this appellant and the deceased was drowned by force is substantiated from the ocular evidence of this witness. I find this witness wholly reliable. From the statement of P.W.6 it is clear that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence as he in his cross-examination has clearly stated that he was not with the appellant and he came to know about the occurrence from other persons, who had reached there and had seen the occurrence. From the statement of the P.W.7, I find that admittedly the informant is a hear-say witness. From the statement of the P.W.7, I find that admittedly the informant is a hear-say witness. One Baidyanath Mahto had called him over phone and informed that the deceased was murdered by this appellant by drowning her in water. He was also informed about the place of occurrence, i.e., “Hirwa Pain”. From the evidence of this witness, it is also clear that Champa Devi and Sanju Devi (P.W.5) had seen the occurrence. He was informed about this. Though Champa Devi has not been examined, but Sanju Devi has been examined as P.W.5. She is the eye witness and has narrated the incidence, which she had seen. From the evidence of P.W.8, i.e., the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination, it is clear that the doctor has opined that the death is due to drowning. Tenor of cross-examination of the other witnesses by the defence also suggests that the defence also admits that the deceased died due to drowning. The doctor also found mark of injury on the neck of the deceased on the right side, which corroborates the evidence of P.W.5, who stated that the neck was pressed and she was forced in the water. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of ocular witness. ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 16. The formal First Information Report has been marked as Exhibit 4 and proved by the P.W.9, who is the Investigating Officer. He stated that the same was written by him and signed by the Officer-in-Charge. Further, the Postmortem Report has been marked as Exhibit 3. The doctor admitted that it was prepared by him and signed by him. From the Postmortem Report, I find that there was external abrasion found on the side of the neck. Swelling on the left side and abrasion on left elbow. These abrasions suggest that there was pressure and force applied. Further, as per the doctor, cause of death is drowning. Seizure list has been exhibited by P.W.1. Fardbeyan and the Seizure List have also been proved by P.W.1. Thus, I find that documents have also been properly proved and marked as exhibits. All the documents have been exhibited without objection from the side of the defence. Their credibility cannot be doubted. FINDINGS AND CASE LAWS 17. Seizure list has been exhibited by P.W.1. Fardbeyan and the Seizure List have also been proved by P.W.1. Thus, I find that documents have also been properly proved and marked as exhibits. All the documents have been exhibited without objection from the side of the defence. Their credibility cannot be doubted. FINDINGS AND CASE LAWS 17. From the oral evidence led by the witnesses, it is clear that except P.W.5, none of the other witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence, rather all are hearsay witness. Appellant tried to argue that there is only one eye witness to the occurrence and her evidence is not believable. It is further case of the appellant that though there are reference of other persons, who had seen the occurrence or immediately reached thereafter, but none of them have been examined. Thus, the prosecution case is doubtful. I am not in a position to accept the argument of the counsel for the appellant. It is a well settled principle that it is not the number of witnesses which matters, rather it is quality of evidence that matters to sustain the conviction. Further, it is also well settled that if the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the Court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joy Devaraj versus State of Kerala reported in (2024) 8 SCC 102 at paragraph 19 thereof has held as under: - “19. Even otherwise, Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact. Therefore, it is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. If the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the Court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction. Viewed thus, the conviction of the appellant does not call for interference based on the sole testimony of PW 2, which we found to be entirely trustworthy. Version of PW 2 being sufficiently corroborated by PW 1 (except the weapon) is an additional ground not to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to reverse the conviction.” 19. Version of PW 2 being sufficiently corroborated by PW 1 (except the weapon) is an additional ground not to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to reverse the conviction.” 19. It is also well settled that when the case hinges upon testimony of only one eye witness, the Court should be very cautious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yakub Ismailbhai Patel versus State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 12 SCC 229 at paragraph 45 thereof has held as under: - “45. The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments inasmuch as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the rule of caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eyewitness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it. …” 20. Viewed in the context of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present case, P.W.5 is the sole eye witness, who has narrated the entire occurrence leaving no room for any doubt. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.5 is corroborated by the medical evidence also. Defence has also not brought any material to remotely inject doubt in the mind of the Court that this witness is making any false statement, or this witness was in inimical terms with the appellant. 21. I have analysed the statement of P.W.5 hereinbefore. It is quite clear that she is the eye witness and is wholly reliable. Informant also stated that he could come to know that this witness along with Champa Devi were present at the place of occurrence. Though Champa Devi was not examined, but her non-examination will not dent the prosecution case, as because presence of this witness at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. She herself clearly stated what she had seen as to how the occurrence had taken place. She had stated that the neck of the deceased was pressed by this appellant and she was forced in the water. The appellant sat over the deceased and got her drowned. She herself clearly stated what she had seen as to how the occurrence had taken place. She had stated that the neck of the deceased was pressed by this appellant and she was forced in the water. The appellant sat over the deceased and got her drowned. The medical evidence also corroborates the aforesaid ocular evidence inasmuch as the doctor has also found, as stated in his evidence, that several abrasions were found. The doctor has opined and the Postmortem Report also proves that the deceased died because of drowning. 22. Another glaring issue, which is not to be disbelieved in the testimony of P.W.5 is that in her cross-examination, she has elaborated about how the occurrence had taken place. There is nothing in her cross- examination or entire examination to disbelieve her or to remotely create a doubt in the mind of this Court that she was not present at the place of occurrence, rather beyond all reasonable doubt, it has been established that this witness had seen the occurrence. Thus, the statement of this witness is wholly reliable without any iota of suspicion or doubt. 23. So far as place of occurrence is concerned, the same is near the water body. The Investigating Officer (P.W.9) had clearly stated that the place of occurrence is “Hirwa Pine”, where the local villagers usually take bath, which is a small water body. He, in his evidence, has clearly stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and has described the water body which flows from east to west. Thus, he has proved the place of occurrence, where the deceased had drowned. The contention of the appellant that the place of occurrence has not been proved falls flat as the Investigating Officer has categorically proved the place of occurrence and so is the evidence of P.W.5, who also stated that the place of occurrence is the water body. 24. Appellant also had taken a plea that the evidence and circumstances, which is borne out from the evidence of P.W.5 has not been put forth to him, which vitiates the trial. To assess the aforesaid argument, I had gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of P.W.5. The statement of P.W.5, as recorded during evidence, has been dealt and analysed above. To assess the aforesaid argument, I had gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence of P.W.5. The statement of P.W.5, as recorded during evidence, has been dealt and analysed above. She has stated that she had seen the appellant thrashing the deceased in the water body and thereafter causing death by drowning. The question, which has been put to the appellant as Question No.2 while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is exactly what the P.W.5 has stated in her evidence. Though in the said question, circumstances have been put to the appellant, which have come in evidence, but the Court did not mention that the said statement has been given by P.W.5. In our view, while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not fatal if the name of the witness is not mentioned. It is sufficient if the circumstances and the evidence which has come from the statement of the witnesses is put forward to the accused. Non- mentioning of the name of the witness, who has stated the same, is neither fatal nor is necessary. It is only to be seen as to whether the circumstance, which is used against the appellant and is borne out from the statement of the witnesses, is put to the appellant or not. In this case, what P.W.5 has stated in evidence has been put to the accused as question No.2. Thus, the appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced in any manner. The contention raised by the appellant is not correct and cannot be accepted. 25. So far as non-examination of the other witnesses is concerned, I have already held that it is not the number witnesses, rather quality of evidence which matters. In this case, evidence of P.W.5 is sufficient to convict the appellant as she is an eye witness to the occurrence and is reliable. 26. So far as non-examination of the speech impaired daughter of the deceased as witness in this case is concerned, I hold that same is of no consequence. Further, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the child should have lodged the First Information Report is also of no consequence. 26. So far as non-examination of the speech impaired daughter of the deceased as witness in this case is concerned, I hold that same is of no consequence. Further, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the child should have lodged the First Information Report is also of no consequence. A First Information Report of a cognizable offence can be lodged by any one. It is not necessary that immediate relation or legal heir of the deceased has to lodge the First Information Report. Further, the appellant cannot question the same as he has also not protested. Be it noted that during course of argument, we had put specific question to the counsel for the appellant, whether it is the case of the defence that the child or any other person, who was present there had given a different statement than the prosecution case, to which the counsel for the appellant stated in negative. This clearly goes to suggest that the appellant was not having any alternative story and it is not also the case that the child or for that matter any other person had narrated some other fact. Thus, when there is no prejudice to the appellant, in this case, it cannot be said that the trial is vitiated by non- examination of the speech impaired daughter of the deceased as witness. 27. So far as motive is concerned, I find that there is consistent evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 that there was dispute between husband and wife inasmuch as the husband did not like the deceased and had married for the second time inspite of opposition, and that was the ground to commit the offence. Further, in this context, I am of the view that establishing the motive is not important in a case where there is direct eye witness to the occurrence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Madan versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1473 at paragraphs 65, 66 and 67 thereof, while referring to earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that motive loses its relevance when there is direct evidence. Paragraphs 65, 66 and 67 of the said judgment read as under: - “65. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the motive attributed by the prosecution is a very weak motive. Paragraphs 65, 66 and 67 of the said judgment read as under: - “65. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the motive attributed by the prosecution is a very weak motive. It is submitted that the motive attributed is on account of political enmity due to elections which were held two and half years prior to the date of incident. The motive is specifically brought on record in the evidence of Lokendra (PW-1) and Irshad Khan (PW-7). Harpal Singh (PW-10) also deposed about the enmity between the families of Ishwar and Ram Kishan. In any case, the present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that relevant. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah, which reads thus: “11. …Another failing in the judgment is that the High Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove adequate motive for the commission of the offence without bearing in mind the well settled rule that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of an offence the question of motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court. …..” 66. This Court, in the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, has observed thus: “15. So far as the issue of motive is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that motive has great significance in a case involving circumstantial evidence, but where direct evidence is available, which is worth relying upon, motive loses its significance…..” 67. Again in the case of Subodh Nath v. State of Tripura, this Court has observed thus: “16. ……The learned counsel for the appellants is right that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive of Appellant 1 to kill the deceased but as there is direct evidence of the accused having committed the offence, motive becomes irrelevant. Motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where the prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only.” 28. Motive becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where the prosecution seeks to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only.” 28. Thus, in this case I find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the offence of murder and involvement of the appellant in commission of murder. Testimony of P.W.5 cannot be doubted in any manner inasmuch as the medical evidence (P.W.8) corroborates the ocular evidence (P.W.5). All the circumstances, which were against this appellant and has been used against him have been put before him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 29. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, I find that none of the witnesses except P.W. 6 have stated anything about the appellant trying to disappear the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 has only stated that the appellant tried to pick the dead body and tried to hide it but people around started raising alarm. Save and except this piece of passing statement of P.W.6, no other witness has stated anything about the appellant trying to disappear the dead body of the deceased. It may be noted that I have already held that P.W.6 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and in absence of any corroboration to the said statement of P.W.6 by any other witness, I do not find any foundation to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 30. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Once conviction under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is upheld, the sentence of life is also upheld, as this is not a case of capital punishment. The judgment of conviction dated 25 th April, 2018 and order of sentence dated 27 th April, 2018 passed in S.T. Case No.115 of 2011 stand modified to the above extent. 31. Once conviction under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is upheld, the sentence of life is also upheld, as this is not a case of capital punishment. The judgment of conviction dated 25 th April, 2018 and order of sentence dated 27 th April, 2018 passed in S.T. Case No.115 of 2011 stand modified to the above extent. 31. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Per Ambuj Nath, J. I agree.