[2010] 8 S.C.R. 1036 A BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2008) JULY 26, 2010 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 323 - Murder - Appellant stabbing his wife and son to death - PW-1, the other son while C trying to intervene also sustaining injuries - Conviction ul ss. 302 and 323 - Challenged - Held: There was nothing to show that PW-1 had any reason to rope his father into such gruesome murder - Evidence of PW-1 was natural, probable and convincing - The other witnesses who were close relatives D and neighbours and reached the spot after hearing the shouts of PW-1, also supported the prosecution case - Ocular evidence was duly supported by post mortem report - Courts below were right in ordering conviction based on the testimony of a single witness since the evidence was cogent and E credible - Absence of motive would not dislodge the prosecution case as there was direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of crime - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 134 - Witness - Sole witness. Criminal law: Motive - Held: Becomes totally irrelevant F when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding commission of the crime - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 323.

The prosecution case was that PW-1 lodged an G Ejahar stating that his father (appellant) came to their house on the fateful night and attacked his mother and the younger brother with a knife. When PW-1 tried to save his mother, he was also attacked and he received injuries H 1036 BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1037 BENGAL on his head and hands. The appellant ran away. Both A the victims died on the spot. The neighbours reached the place of incident on hearing the shouts of PW-1. The trial court held that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 323 IPC. The High Court B affirmed the order of conviction. The order of conviction was challenged in the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Ejahar lodged by PW-1 giving full C details of the commission of the offence and naming his father as the person who committed the offences was written by PW-10. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW-10, it became evident that he was an independent witness residing in another village and could not have any 0 grudge to support the case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. [Para 11] [1044-G-H; 1045-A]

1.2. The conduct of PW-1 remained very natural, probable and convincing. No reason came forward in his E cross-examination as to why he would depose against his father. There was no suggestion by PW-1 that he was not sure as to who had committed the offence, as in his cross-examination, he denied such suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he told the name of the assailant Fas his father by suspicion. The other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant supported the prosecution case. PW-2 deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at about mid-night when PW-1 shouted and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother and brother were murdered by his father with G a sharp cutting knife. PW-1 was also injured on ·his head and hands. PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW~7 and PW-8 al_so deposed to the same effect. All these witnesses were cross-examined but there was nothing to show that any H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A part of their depositions could be doubted. There was nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and B neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case. The defence did not even make a suggestion to PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to c produce any evidence to the effect that PW-1 remained admitted in public health centre, that part of the evidence was ignored by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the commission of crime was expected, being close relatives0 and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close relations of the appellant would depose against him. [Paras 11, 16, 17] [1045-A-F; 1047-B-G]

1.3. The ocular evidence given by PW-1, was duly E supported by the post mortem report and by the doctor PW-5 who had explained that several stab injuries were caused in the chest, neck and heart of the deceased wife of appellant. He proved the post mortem report and opined that the cardio-respiratory failure due to shock F and haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He also opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Same was the situation as regards the injuries on the body of the son of the appellant. [Para 14] [1046-E-G] G 1.4. PW-9 was the Investigating Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer was transferred and he deposed to the effect that he submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324 IPC on H 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder. The BIPIN KUMAR MONO.AL v. STATE OF WEST 1039 BENGAL appellant was given opportunity to cross"examine the A said 1.0.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the best person to explain as to why there could not be any recovery of the weapon used in the crime. [Para · 13] (1046-C-D] B

2. Undoubtedly, there was nothing on record to show as what could be ttie motive behind the murder of the wife and son by the appellant. However, the issue -of· motive becomes totally irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the C commission of the crime. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons deposed against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence would lose its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular evidence was supported by the medical evidence. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does D assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. [Paras 17, 20] E (1047-C-F; 1048-G] 3. Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be F unnatural. Thus, mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt. [Para 22] (1050-C-E]

Shivji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC G 55; Hari· Shankar v. State of UP. (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau. Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616; Abu Thakir & Ors. v. State otTamil Nadu (2010) 5 SCC 91; Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90; State of UP. v. Kishanpal & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73; Matru@ Girish Chandra H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A v. The State of UP. AIR 1971 SC 1050; Rahman v. State of UP. AIR 1972 SC 110; State of M.P v. Pa/tan Mal/ah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733, relied on. 4. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is8 the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-C honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. [Para 25] [1051-A-C] Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 D SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150; Kunju @ Ba/achandran v. State of Tami Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381; Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614, relied on. E Case Law Reference:

AIR 1973 SC 55 relied on Para 18 (1996) 9 sec 40 relied on Para 19 F (2003) 12 sec 616 relied on Para 19 (201 o) 5 sec 91 relied on Para 19 (2001) 13 sec 90 relied on Para 20 (2008) 16 sec 73 relied on Para 21G AIR 1971 SC 1050 relied on Para 22 AIR 1972 SC 110 relied on Para 22 AIR 2005 SC 733 relied on Para 22 H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1041 BENGAL (2003) 11 sec 367 relied on Para 25 A (2001) 14 sec 150 relied on Para 26 AIR 2008 SC 1381 relied on Para 27 AIR 1994 SC 1251 relied on Para 27 B AIR 1957 SC 614 relied on Para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 124 7 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.7.2005 of the High C Court at Calcutta in CRA No. 352 of 2001. Seeraj Bagga (AC) for the Appellant. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ananya Kar for the Respondent. 0 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2001 by the High E Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001 (State Vs. Bipin Kumar Monda/) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the F 'IPC'). Factual Matrix :

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar G Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin Kumar Monda!, appellant herein, came to their house at about midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani Monda!, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her person. When he went to save his mother, he was also attacked by his father. H 1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A He received injuries on his head and hands and he had to escape out of fear. His younger brother, Ajit Mondal, was also severely injured with a knife by his father. On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran away. B 3. On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/307 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, he was put to trial.

C 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant. An Ejahar was lodged by the son of the appellant and other witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in the same village. The Trial Court considered the evidence of D prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that petition of complaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10, on the instructions of Sujit Monda I, PW-1, and both of them supported the prosecution case in Court. Saidul Islam, PW-10, was a resident of another village and had gone to Raninagar Public E Health Centre in connection with the treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, to write the said Ejahar (Exh.-1 ). Sujit Mondal, PW-1, had deposed that he had gone to the same Public Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment for one day. The other witnesses F who were close neighbours had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all of them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts by Sujit Monda! and when they reached there, they were told by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that his father had killed his mother and brother and inflicted injuries on his person. G After considering the entire evidence on record and taking it into consideration along with the defence taken by the appellant, which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the injuries on the person of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, were found not to be so serious H

BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1043 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar A Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted there. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. Thus, he was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months' RI under Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences would run B concurrently vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2001. 5. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002. Hence, cthis appeal. Rival Submissions : 6. Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely 0 implicated in the crime. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, was not sure as to who had committed the offence. There was no motive for committing the crime and the weapon with which the offence had been committed has never been recovered. The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, the so-called related persons E or neighbours are merely based on hearsay as none of them had seen the commission of offence.

7. There are material contradictions in their depositions. Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal died within a short time after F his arrival. However, none of the other witnesses have stated that when they reached the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, Ajit Monda! was alive and had died after some time. All the three persons had been sleeping in the same room which was open. Therefore, it was G possible for any outsider to enter into the house and the possibility that an outsider entered the house and committed the offence could not be ruled out. The appellant was an anti-social element and many persons had a grudge against him. So, any other person could have committed the crime. The H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A evidence to the effect that at the time of commission of offence, the lamp was burning and there was sufficient light, is also not free from doubt. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. On the contrary, Shri Avij1t Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the State, has opposed the appeal and vehemently8 submitted that Sujit Monda!, PW-1, had no doubt or suspicion in his mind that his father had committed the offence. The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, who are close relatives and neighbours who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after commission of the offence, cannot be C doubted as each of them has deposed before the Trial Court that Sujit Monda!, PW-1, told them that the appellant, his father has committed the crime. The recovery of knife used in the commission of offence could not be made because the appellant remained absconding for a long time. The conduct D of the appellant i.e. absconding for a long time itself establishes the guilt of the appellant. 9. All the witnesses had been put to cross-examination and nothing has been obtained to seek the credence of the E evidence of any of them. The appellant just pleaded innocence and nothing else. He did not even disclose as under what circumstances he had absconded from his family home and had been living somewhere else, where he had been at the time of commission of offence and why did he not attend any ritual i.e. F funeral etc. of the victims if he was innocent. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. G 11. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, has lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 giving full details of the commission of the offence and naming his father as the person who committed the offence. The said Ejahar had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10. On scrutiny of evidence of PW-10, it H becomes evident that he is an independent witness residing BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1045 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

in another village and could not have any grudge to support the A case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. The conduct of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, remains very natural, probable and convincing. During cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from him seeking the credence of his statement. No reason came forward in the cross-examination or otherwise as to why a son B would depose against his father. There is no suggestion by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that he was not sure as to who has committed the offence, as in cross-examination he denied such a suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion. The other witnesses c who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant have supported the prosecution case. Sambhu Nath, PW-2, had deposed that he reached at about mid-night when Sujit Monda!, PW-1, shouted and he came out from his house and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother and brother had been D murdered by the appellant with a sharp cutting knife. PW-1 was . also injured on his head and hands. Swapan Kumar, PW-3, deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, he interrogated Sujit Monda!, who told him that his father had killed his mother, Usha Rani and brother, Ajit Monda! and there had E been an attempt by his father to kill him (Sujit Monda!) also with a sharp cutting knife. Dilip Kumar, PW-4, Binay Monda!, PW-6, Anukul Chandra, PW-7 and Prasanna Kumar, PW-8, also deposed to the same effect. All these witnesses had been cross-examined but there is nothing on record to show that any F part of their depositions could be doubted. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga that there were material contradictions in their depositions as learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Monda! was alive and he interrogated him as to who had G caused the injury and he told him that his father assaulted him and left. He further deposed that Sujit Monda! told him that Ajit Monda! and Usha Rani were also attacked by the appellant and Ajit Monda! died within a short time and Usha Rani had died before his arrival. / H

1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 8 S.C.R. A 12. The submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga is that none of the other witnesses had deposed that when any of them reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal was alive. In fact, there is nothing on record to show as who was the person who reached first at the place of occurrence. It cannot be presumed B that all of them reached the place of occurrence at the same time/simultaneously. No other question had been put to Dilip Kumar, PW-4, in his cross-examination. Therefore, it is quite possible that he was the first man to arrive at the place of occurrerce and the statement made by him cannot be denied. c 13. Bipin Mukherjee, PW-9, had been the Investigating Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer had been transferred and he had deposed that he had submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324 IPC on 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder. D The appellant was given opportunity to cross-examine the said 1.0.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the best person to explain as to why there could not be any recovery of the knife, the weapon used in the crime.

E 14. Saidul Islam, PW-10, an independent witness belonging to another village has successfully proved the Ejahar written by him at Raninagar Public Health Centre. The ocular evidence given by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, is duly supported by the post mortem report and by Dr. Tarun Kumar, PW-5, examined F by the prosecution, who had explained that several stab injuries had been caused in the chest, neck and heart of Usha Rani Mondal. He proved the post mortem report and opined that the cardio respiratory failure due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He also opined that G injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Same remains the situation so far as the injuries on the body of Ajit Mondal are concerned. 15. For every question put to the appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same reply was H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1047 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] given that he was innocent and he submitted that he would not A adduce any evidence in his defence. 16. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for Sujit Monda!, PW-1, a son, to falsely B implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case.

c 17. During the cross-examination of all- of the witnesses, nothing had transpired for which their evidence may be discarded. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the commission of crime is expected, being close relatives and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close D relations of the appellant would depose against him. Undoubtedly, there is nothing on record to show as what could be the motive behind the murder of his wife and son by the appellant. However, it can be difficult to understand the motive behind the offence. The issue of motive becomes totally E irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of the crime. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons depose against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence loses its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular F evidence is supported by the medical evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had received any grave or sudden provocation from the victims or that the appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of either of the victims. G Motive: 18. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him H 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, this Court held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive. that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, B go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such c proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy.

19. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence D of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive E of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of UP., (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, F (2003) 12 SCC 616; and Abu Thakir & Or:s. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (201 O) 5 sec 91 ). ·. 20. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance, but to say that the absence of G motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. (Vide Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 sec 90). H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1049 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

21. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in State A of UP. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under: "The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove B the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused C persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand D in th~ way of conviction." Abscondance by Accused : 22. In Matru@ Girish Chandra Vs. The State of UP., AIR 1971 SC 1050, this Court repelled the submissions made by E the State that as after commission of the offence the accused had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn that he was a guilty person observing as under:

"The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily F lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evad9 arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime $L!Ch is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other G evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a H 1050 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 8 S.C.R. A determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being B wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence." C A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Rahman Vs. State of UP. AIR 1972 SC 110; and State of MP. Vs. Pa/tan Mal/ah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733.

Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the D police, cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining E untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt. Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. 23. The defence did not even make a suggestion to Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a F knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to the effect that Sujit Mondal. PW-1, remained admitted in PHC Raninagar. That part of the evidence has been ignored by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. G Testimony of Sole Witness : 24. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, and the rest, i.e. depositions of PW-2 to PW-8, could be treated merely as a hearsay. The H same cannot be relied upon for conviction. BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1051 BENGAL[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

25. In S.uml Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, A (2003) 11 SCC 367, this Court repelled a similar submission·,. observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the S<?,le testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 B of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact. it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is c cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 26. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra. (2007) 14 SCC 150, this Court re-iterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid D emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is. therefore. open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Cc:;versely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if ii 1s E not satisfied about the quality of evidence.

27. In Kunju @ Balachandran Vs. State of Tami Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381. a similar view has been re-iterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this court including F Jagdis/J Prasad Vs St2te of MP. AIR 1994 SC 1251; and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614. 28. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a Gsolitary eye-witness has no force and is negatived accordingly. 29. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do not present special features warranting the review of the judgments/orders 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A of the courts below. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30. Before parting with the case. we record our appreciation, thanks and gratitude to Shri Seeraj Bagga in rendering full assistance to the Court during the course of8 hearing. D.G. Appeal dismissed.

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 1036 A BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No.1247 of 2008) JULY 26, 2010 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 323 - Murder - Appellant stabbing his wife and son to death - PW-1, the other son while C trying to intervene also sustaining injuries - Conviction ul ss. 302 and 323 - Challenged - Held: There was nothing to show that PW-1 had any reason to rope his father into such gruesome murder - Evidence of PW-1 was natural, probable and convincing - The other witnesses who were close relatives D and neighbours and reached the spot after hearing the shouts of PW-1, also supported the prosecution case - Ocular evidence was duly supported by post mortem report - Courts below were right in ordering conviction based on the testimony of a single witness since the evidence was cogent and E credible - Absence of motive would not dislodge the prosecution case as there was direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of crime - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 134 - Witness - Sole witness. Criminal law: Motive - Held: Becomes totally irrelevant F when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding commission of the crime - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 323.

The prosecution case was that PW-1 lodged an G Ejahar stating that his father (appellant) came to their house on the fateful night and attacked his mother and the younger brother with a knife. When PW-1 tried to save his mother, he was also attacked and he received injuries H 1036 BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1037 BENGAL on his head and hands. The appellant ran away. Both A the victims died on the spot. The neighbours reached the place of incident on hearing the shouts of PW-1. The trial court held that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 323 IPC. The High Court B affirmed the order of conviction. The order of conviction was challenged in the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Ejahar lodged by PW-1 giving full C details of the commission of the offence and naming his father as the person who committed the offences was written by PW-10. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW-10, it became evident that he was an independent witness residing in another village and could not have any 0 grudge to support the case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. [Para 11] [1044-G-H; 1045-A]

1.2. The conduct of PW-1 remained very natural, probable and convincing. No reason came forward in his E cross-examination as to why he would depose against his father. There was no suggestion by PW-1 that he was not sure as to who had committed the offence, as in his cross-examination, he denied such suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he told the name of the assailant Fas his father by suspicion. The other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant supported the prosecution case. PW-2 deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at about mid-night when PW-1 shouted and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother and brother were murdered by his father with G a sharp cutting knife. PW-1 was also injured on ·his head and hands. PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW~7 and PW-8 al_so deposed to the same effect. All these witnesses were cross-examined but there was nothing to show that any H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A part of their depositions could be doubted. There was nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and B neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case. The defence did not even make a suggestion to PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to c produce any evidence to the effect that PW-1 remained admitted in public health centre, that part of the evidence was ignored by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the commission of crime was expected, being close relatives0 and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close relations of the appellant would depose against him. [Paras 11, 16, 17] [1045-A-F; 1047-B-G]

1.3. The ocular evidence given by PW-1, was duly E supported by the post mortem report and by the doctor PW-5 who had explained that several stab injuries were caused in the chest, neck and heart of the deceased wife of appellant. He proved the post mortem report and opined that the cardio-respiratory failure due to shock F and haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He also opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Same was the situation as regards the injuries on the body of the son of the appellant. [Para 14] [1046-E-G] G 1.4. PW-9 was the Investigating Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer was transferred and he deposed to the effect that he submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324 IPC on H 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder. The BIPIN KUMAR MONO.AL v. STATE OF WEST 1039 BENGAL appellant was given opportunity to cross"examine the A said 1.0.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the best person to explain as to why there could not be any recovery of the weapon used in the crime. [Para · 13] (1046-C-D] B

2. Undoubtedly, there was nothing on record to show as what could be ttie motive behind the murder of the wife and son by the appellant. However, the issue -of· motive becomes totally irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the C commission of the crime. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons deposed against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence would lose its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular evidence was supported by the medical evidence. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does D assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. [Paras 17, 20] E (1047-C-F; 1048-G] 3. Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be F unnatural. Thus, mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt. [Para 22] (1050-C-E]

Shivji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC G 55; Hari· Shankar v. State of UP. (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau. Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616; Abu Thakir & Ors. v. State otTamil Nadu (2010) 5 SCC 91; Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90; State of UP. v. Kishanpal & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73; Matru@ Girish Chandra H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A v. The State of UP. AIR 1971 SC 1050; Rahman v. State of UP. AIR 1972 SC 110; State of M.P v. Pa/tan Mal/ah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733, relied on. 4. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is8 the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-C honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. [Para 25] [1051-A-C] Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 D SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150; Kunju @ Ba/achandran v. State of Tami Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381; Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614, relied on. E Case Law Reference:

AIR 1973 SC 55 relied on Para 18 (1996) 9 sec 40 relied on Para 19 F (2003) 12 sec 616 relied on Para 19 (201 o) 5 sec 91 relied on Para 19 (2001) 13 sec 90 relied on Para 20 (2008) 16 sec 73 relied on Para 21G AIR 1971 SC 1050 relied on Para 22 AIR 1972 SC 110 relied on Para 22 AIR 2005 SC 733 relied on Para 22 H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1041 BENGAL (2003) 11 sec 367 relied on Para 25 A (2001) 14 sec 150 relied on Para 26 AIR 2008 SC 1381 relied on Para 27 AIR 1994 SC 1251 relied on Para 27 B AIR 1957 SC 614 relied on Para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 124 7 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.7.2005 of the High C Court at Calcutta in CRA No. 352 of 2001. Seeraj Bagga (AC) for the Appellant. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ananya Kar for the Respondent. 0 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2001 by the High E Court of Calcutta, by which the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001 (State Vs. Bipin Kumar Monda/) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the F 'IPC'). Factual Matrix :

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar G Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin Kumar Monda!, appellant herein, came to their house at about midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani Monda!, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her person. When he went to save his mother, he was also attacked by his father. H 1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A He received injuries on his head and hands and he had to escape out of fear. His younger brother, Ajit Mondal, was also severely injured with a knife by his father. On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran away. B 3. On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/307 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, he was put to trial.

C 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant. An Ejahar was lodged by the son of the appellant and other witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in the same village. The Trial Court considered the evidence of D prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that petition of complaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10, on the instructions of Sujit Monda I, PW-1, and both of them supported the prosecution case in Court. Saidul Islam, PW-10, was a resident of another village and had gone to Raninagar Public E Health Centre in connection with the treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, to write the said Ejahar (Exh.-1 ). Sujit Mondal, PW-1, had deposed that he had gone to the same Public Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment for one day. The other witnesses F who were close neighbours had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all of them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts by Sujit Monda! and when they reached there, they were told by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that his father had killed his mother and brother and inflicted injuries on his person. G After considering the entire evidence on record and taking it into consideration along with the defence taken by the appellant, which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the injuries on the person of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, were found not to be so serious H

BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1043 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar A Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted there. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. Thus, he was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months' RI under Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences would run B concurrently vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2001. 5. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002. Hence, cthis appeal. Rival Submissions : 6. Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely 0 implicated in the crime. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, was not sure as to who had committed the offence. There was no motive for committing the crime and the weapon with which the offence had been committed has never been recovered. The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, the so-called related persons E or neighbours are merely based on hearsay as none of them had seen the commission of offence.

7. There are material contradictions in their depositions. Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal died within a short time after F his arrival. However, none of the other witnesses have stated that when they reached the place of occurrence after hearing the hue and cry of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, Ajit Monda! was alive and had died after some time. All the three persons had been sleeping in the same room which was open. Therefore, it was G possible for any outsider to enter into the house and the possibility that an outsider entered the house and committed the offence could not be ruled out. The appellant was an anti-social element and many persons had a grudge against him. So, any other person could have committed the crime. The H 1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A evidence to the effect that at the time of commission of offence, the lamp was burning and there was sufficient light, is also not free from doubt. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. On the contrary, Shri Avij1t Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the State, has opposed the appeal and vehemently8 submitted that Sujit Monda!, PW-1, had no doubt or suspicion in his mind that his father had committed the offence. The depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, who are close relatives and neighbours who had reached the place of occurrence immediately after commission of the offence, cannot be C doubted as each of them has deposed before the Trial Court that Sujit Monda!, PW-1, told them that the appellant, his father has committed the crime. The recovery of knife used in the commission of offence could not be made because the appellant remained absconding for a long time. The conduct D of the appellant i.e. absconding for a long time itself establishes the guilt of the appellant. 9. All the witnesses had been put to cross-examination and nothing has been obtained to seek the credence of the E evidence of any of them. The appellant just pleaded innocence and nothing else. He did not even disclose as under what circumstances he had absconded from his family home and had been living somewhere else, where he had been at the time of commission of offence and why did he not attend any ritual i.e. F funeral etc. of the victims if he was innocent. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. G 11. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, has lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 giving full details of the commission of the offence and naming his father as the person who committed the offence. The said Ejahar had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10. On scrutiny of evidence of PW-10, it H becomes evident that he is an independent witness residing BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1045 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

in another village and could not have any grudge to support the A case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. The conduct of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, remains very natural, probable and convincing. During cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from him seeking the credence of his statement. No reason came forward in the cross-examination or otherwise as to why a son B would depose against his father. There is no suggestion by Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that he was not sure as to who has committed the offence, as in cross-examination he denied such a suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion. The other witnesses c who were close relatives and neighbours of the appellant have supported the prosecution case. Sambhu Nath, PW-2, had deposed that he reached at about mid-night when Sujit Monda!, PW-1, shouted and he came out from his house and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother and brother had been D murdered by the appellant with a sharp cutting knife. PW-1 was . also injured on his head and hands. Swapan Kumar, PW-3, deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, he interrogated Sujit Monda!, who told him that his father had killed his mother, Usha Rani and brother, Ajit Monda! and there had E been an attempt by his father to kill him (Sujit Monda!) also with a sharp cutting knife. Dilip Kumar, PW-4, Binay Monda!, PW-6, Anukul Chandra, PW-7 and Prasanna Kumar, PW-8, also deposed to the same effect. All these witnesses had been cross-examined but there is nothing on record to show that any F part of their depositions could be doubted. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga that there were material contradictions in their depositions as learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Monda! was alive and he interrogated him as to who had G caused the injury and he told him that his father assaulted him and left. He further deposed that Sujit Monda! told him that Ajit Monda! and Usha Rani were also attacked by the appellant and Ajit Monda! died within a short time and Usha Rani had died before his arrival. / H

1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 8 S.C.R. A 12. The submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga is that none of the other witnesses had deposed that when any of them reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal was alive. In fact, there is nothing on record to show as who was the person who reached first at the place of occurrence. It cannot be presumed B that all of them reached the place of occurrence at the same time/simultaneously. No other question had been put to Dilip Kumar, PW-4, in his cross-examination. Therefore, it is quite possible that he was the first man to arrive at the place of occurrerce and the statement made by him cannot be denied. c 13. Bipin Mukherjee, PW-9, had been the Investigating Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer had been transferred and he had deposed that he had submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324 IPC on 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder. D The appellant was given opportunity to cross-examine the said 1.0.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the best person to explain as to why there could not be any recovery of the knife, the weapon used in the crime.

E 14. Saidul Islam, PW-10, an independent witness belonging to another village has successfully proved the Ejahar written by him at Raninagar Public Health Centre. The ocular evidence given by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, is duly supported by the post mortem report and by Dr. Tarun Kumar, PW-5, examined F by the prosecution, who had explained that several stab injuries had been caused in the chest, neck and heart of Usha Rani Mondal. He proved the post mortem report and opined that the cardio respiratory failure due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He also opined that G injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Same remains the situation so far as the injuries on the body of Ajit Mondal are concerned. 15. For every question put to the appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same reply was H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1047 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.] given that he was innocent and he submitted that he would not A adduce any evidence in his defence. 16. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for Sujit Monda!, PW-1, a son, to falsely B implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case.

c 17. During the cross-examination of all- of the witnesses, nothing had transpired for which their evidence may be discarded. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the commission of crime is expected, being close relatives and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close D relations of the appellant would depose against him. Undoubtedly, there is nothing on record to show as what could be the motive behind the murder of his wife and son by the appellant. However, it can be difficult to understand the motive behind the offence. The issue of motive becomes totally E irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the commission of the crime. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons depose against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence loses its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular F evidence is supported by the medical evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had received any grave or sudden provocation from the victims or that the appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of either of the victims. G Motive: 18. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him H 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, this Court held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive. that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, B go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such c proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy.

19. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence D of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive E of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of UP., (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, F (2003) 12 SCC 616; and Abu Thakir & Or:s. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (201 O) 5 sec 91 ). ·. 20. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does assume great importance, but to say that the absence of G motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. (Vide Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 sec 90). H BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST 1049 BENGAL [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

21. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in State A of UP. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under: "The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove B the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused C persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand D in th~ way of conviction." Abscondance by Accused : 22. In Matru@ Girish Chandra Vs. The State of UP., AIR 1971 SC 1050, this Court repelled the submissions made by E the State that as after commission of the offence the accused had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn that he was a guilty person observing as under:

"The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily F lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evad9 arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime $L!Ch is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other G evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a H 1050 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 8 S.C.R. A determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being B wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence." C A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Rahman Vs. State of UP. AIR 1972 SC 110; and State of MP. Vs. Pa/tan Mal/ah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733.

Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the D police, cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining E untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt. Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience. 23. The defence did not even make a suggestion to Sujit Monda!, PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a F knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to the effect that Sujit Mondal. PW-1, remained admitted in PHC Raninagar. That part of the evidence has been ignored by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. G Testimony of Sole Witness : 24. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Monda!, PW-1, and the rest, i.e. depositions of PW-2 to PW-8, could be treated merely as a hearsay. The H same cannot be relied upon for conviction. BIPIN KUMAR MON DAL v. STATE OF WEST 1051 BENGAL[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

25. In S.uml Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, A (2003) 11 SCC 367, this Court repelled a similar submission·,. observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the S<?,le testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 B of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact. it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is c cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 26. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra. (2007) 14 SCC 150, this Court re-iterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid D emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is. therefore. open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Cc:;versely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if ii 1s E not satisfied about the quality of evidence.

27. In Kunju @ Balachandran Vs. State of Tami Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381. a similar view has been re-iterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this court including F Jagdis/J Prasad Vs St2te of MP. AIR 1994 SC 1251; and Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614. 28. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a Gsolitary eye-witness has no force and is negatived accordingly. 29. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do not present special features warranting the review of the judgments/orders 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A of the courts below. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30. Before parting with the case. we record our appreciation, thanks and gratitude to Shri Seeraj Bagga in rendering full assistance to the Court during the course of8 hearing. D.G. Appeal dismissed.