1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan. The father and son were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing the death of three persons who were no other than their family members.
2. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 25-6-1977 and 26-6-1977. Meet Singh and his son, Bhagwan Singh (the deceased) were sleeping on the cots. Gurdeep Kaur, wife of Bhagwan Singh, was sleeping with her mother-in-law, Punjab Kaur (the deceased) in the courtyard inside the house. The two accused were also sleeping on their respective cots inside the house at some distance. It is alleged that at about 3 or 3.30 a.m Gurdeep Kaur aroused from sleep when her husband's brother Balbir Singh (the accused) struck a kassi-blow on the body of her mother-in-law, Punjab Kaur. PW 1 claimed to have seen the other accused also striking a blow on the body of Punjab Kaur with a gandasa. She tried to rescue her mother-in-law but she was pushed aside. She also claimed to have seen her father-in-law, Meet Singh and husband Bhagwan Singh being murdered by both the accused by the respective weapons. PW 1 raised an outcry which attracted Bhagwan Kaur who came to the place of occurrence immediately. But she was not examined. Seeing Bhagwan Kaur, the accused ran away.
3. Further, the case of the prosecution is that on hearing cries PWs 2 and 3 came there and tried to run after the accused assailants but could not overtake them. PW 3 is alleged to have gone to the house of Suja and informed him about the triple murder. Suja came to the spot and he claimed that he was informed by Gurdeep Kaur (PW 1) that the respondent-accused killed these persons. Then Suja accompanied by one Nathu rushed to the field of PW 5 and informed him about the occurrence. A report was given to the police. The case was registered and in the report it was mentioned that the motive on the part of the accused to commit the murders was that Balbir Singh, accused, wanted 15 bighas of land in excess of his share from his father Meet Singh (the deceased), while he was given only 10 bighas.
4. The police held inquest over the three dead bodies and sent them for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found three critical injuries which could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. The accused denied the offence. The trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused and sentenced both of them to death. The convicted accused also preferred appeals. The High Court rejected the reference for confirmation of death sentence, allowed the appeals filed by the convicted accused. Hence the present appeal arises from the order of the High Court.
5. From the abovestated facts, it can be seen that the case rested entirely on the solitary evidence of PW 1. The High Court has pointed out several infirmities in the evidence of PW 1. It is well settled that if the case rests entirely on the sole evidence of the eyewitness, such testimony should be wholly reliable. In this case, the occurrence admittedly took place in the darkness. The two accused were also sleeping in the courtyard along with the other family members, out of whom three were unfortunately killed on the fateful night. PW 1 categorically stated that she woke up only when her mother-in-law was beaten by one of the accused but yet she added that she saw her father-in-law and husband who were sleeping in the courtyard of the house being murdered by the miscreants. This is a clear infirmity in her evidence. That apart, it is highly doubtful that there was any light with the help of which she could have identified the accused. On the other hand, a story was built up that an electric bulb was burning, in support of which there is no material.
6. The High Court also considered the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and admittedly they came afterwards. PW 3 claimed in the trial court that he saw the assailants running away and could identify them from the back. The High Court has rightly pointed out that there was no source of light to identify in the darkness when the assailants were running away. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the non-examination of Bhagwan Kaur who immediately reached the place of occurrence warrants an adverse inference. A careful consideration of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 as well as the other witnesses shows that PW 1 did not mention the names immediately. These are the valid and good reasons for not accepting the evidence of the sole eyewitness (PW 1) and once the evidence of PW 1, the sole eyewitness becomes unreliable, the other evidence does not, in any manner advance the case. We see no ground to come to a different conclusion. The appeal is dismissed.