IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

<>

ON THE 8

<>

th

<>

OF JANUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1118 of 2016

<>

BIFAIYA BAIGA

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Surendra Kumar Khare - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri B.K. Upadhyay - Government Advocate for the

respondent/State.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen.

<>

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated

10.09.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol (M.P.), in S.T.

No.383/2014, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for

offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC' for short) and sentenced him to life imprisonment with

fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation of 06 months' Rigorous

Imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as under:-

2.1 On 26.08.2014 at about 1:00 PM, when complainant Hariram, who was

1 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

a resident of Village Udhiya Mauhar Tola and suffering from paralysis, was

cutting fodder in his field, Puniya Bai wife of Lalva Baiga came to take out

the water from the hand pump. After taking out the water when Puniya Bai

was returning back to her home accused Bifaiya Baiga came out of his house

armed with Tangia (Axe) and started assaulting her, as a result of which

Punia Bai fell down and thereafter accused returned back to his house. When

Lalwa Baiga (husband of deceased Puniya Bai) came back, complainant

Hariram informed him that accused Bifaiya Baiga had assaulted his wife

Puniya Bai on account of old grudge by hitting her with a tangia.

2.2 Upon a report to this effect, Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-1 and Dehati Merg

Intimation Exhibit P-2 were recorded. Thereafter, First Information Report

Exhibit P-4 was recorded and the case was taken up for investigation.

3. Upon being charged under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant abjured his

guilt and sought to contest further proceedings in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment dated

10.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol in S.T. No.383/2014

is against law and procedure, passed without minute examination of

facts/evidence and proper legal provisions, and, therefore, the same is liable

to be set aside. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to see the

statement of Hariram (PW-4) who is eye-witness in this case because as

per prosecution, he was paralyzed and even after he was paralyzed, he was

cutting grass on his badi and after looking incident, he was silent for about 5

to 6 hours and has not stated anything to anybody, therefore, the said eye-

witness was not reliable. According to the counsel for the appellant, the trial

Court has failed to see material contradiction and omission between the

2 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

prosecution witnesses. He further states that the trial Court has failed to see

the statements of prosecution witnesses Lalva Baiga (PW-3), Ratnu Baiga

(PW-5) and Semvati Baiga (PW-6). They are all hearsay and interested

witnesses. According to him, the trial Court has further failed to see the

F.S.L. report and Postmortem report because Dr. Amit Pyasi (PW-11) had

opined that the cause of death was due to injury sustained on account of mar-

peet which was homicidal in nature and therefore, the appeal deserves to be

allowed and appellant is liable to be acquitted.

5. On the other hand, Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State, in his turn, supports the impugned judgment and submits

that after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence which has been

produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has properly convicted the

appellant under Section 302 of IPC and there is no such mistake in the

finding of the trial Court and there are sufficient evidences against the

present appellant to confirm the conviction and as such, it does not call for

any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the

record.

7. Dr. Amit Pyasi (PW-11) had conducted the postmortem of Puniya Bai on

27

th

August 2014. He found that there was bleeding on her face and head.

There was a lacerated wound on the right side of her head. It was so deep that

a piece of bone had been broken off. There was a fracture on the back side of

her head which was caused by a hard object. The weapon could possibly be a

hard and double-edged blade and both injuries on the head came from

different sides of the weapon. He opined that the cause of death was shock

3 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

due to excessive bleeding and brain injury. The postmortem report is exhibit

P-11A.

8. Pushpa Patel (PW 10) prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-9). Hariram's

house was situated to the north side of the place of incident and there was a

hand pump on the other side. She stated that Hariram's house is on one side

of the road where the incident took place and there is a hand pump on the

other side as per Exhibit P-9. The accused Bifaiya's house is to the south of

the incident site.

9. Lalva Baiga (PW-3) stated that the Puniya Bai was his wife. The incident

occurred near about five months back, a day before the Teej festival. He

deposed that when he returned home at 6 p.m. in the evening with Sukhkhu

Baiga and Sugana Baiga at that time Hariram Baiga informed that accused

Bifaiya Baiga had killed his wife with an Axe like weapon. Thereafter he

went to Ayodhya Maharaj of the Village and informed him and then Kailash

Maharaj called the police. According to him, his wife's dead body was lying

on the road, a little ahead of the hand pump next to the accused's house.

Puniya Bai had a pit-like injury on the back of her head and between her ear

and eye and there was bleeding. Police had prepared the spot map of the

place of incident and also prepared the panchama of dead body.

10. Hariram Baiga (PW-4), who is the eye witness of the case, stated in his

examination-in-chief that on 26.08.2014 at about 1:00 PM, when he was

cutting fodder in his field, Puniya Bai wife of Lalva Baiga came to take out

the water from the hand pump. After taking out the water when Puniya Bai

was returning back to her home accused Bifaiya Baiga came out of his house

armed with Tangia (Axe) and started assaulting her, as a result of which

4 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

Punia Bai fell down and thereafter accused returned back to his house. When

Lalwa Baiga (husband of deceased Puniya Bai) came back, complainant

Hariram informed him that accused Bifaiya Baiga had assaulted his wife

Puniya Bai on account of old grudge by hitting her with a tangia. He also

stated that he did not intervene because he feared that the accused would kill

him too. Based on the information given by this witness, Dehati Nalshi and

merg intimation have been registered by H.S. Pandey (PW-13). On perusal

of aforesaid statement, it appears that there was no contradiction or omission

of any kind in the cross-examination of this witness. This witness admitted

in Para 7 of his cross-examination that he too is having a dispute with the

accused Bifaiya Baiga regarding land. Similarly, this witness also admitted

that he saw the incident from his courtyard (badi).

11. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the spot map was

prepared by Pushpa Patel (PW.10) in which it is shown that on one side of

the road where the incident took place is Hariram's house and on the other

side is a hand pump and on the south side is the house of the accused Bifaiya

Baiga. Thus, the presence of Hariram Baiga (PW-4) at the scene of the

incident is natural. Therefore, merely on the basis of the fact that the accused

had enmity with this witness, the evidence of this witness cannot be

discarded.

12. From the evidence of Ratnu Baiga (PW-5), Semvati Baiga (PW-6),

Harihar Kewat (PW-8) and Smt. Battu Bai (PW-9), it is clear that they

reached on the spot after the incident and saw the dead body of deceased

Punia Bai. Ratnu Baiga (PW-5) stated that Lalva Baiga told him that

accused Bifaiya Baiga had killed his wife Puniya Bai and he saw Punya Bai

5 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

had sustained injury on the back side of her head.

13. H.S. Pandey (PW-13) who is the investigating officer in this case has

stated in his examination-in-chief that on reaching the spot at 7:30 pm on

being informed about the incident by complainant Hariram, he registered a

crime against the accused on the spot vide Crime No. 0/14 under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code and recorded Dehati Nalshi vide Exhibit P-2 on the

spot itself, against accused Bifaiya Baiga. After that, he sent the Dehati merg

intimation Exhibit P1 and Dehati Nalshi Exhibit P-2 through constable

Purushottam Singh for registration to Police Station, Singhpur. He had

written the statements of complainant Hariram Baiga and Lalwa Baiga

(husband of deceased) on the same day. He also prepared spot map on

27

th

August 2014 in presence of Hariram Baiga, Lalwa Baiga and

Rampramod. In the presence of witnesses, the dead body and the area around

the incident site were inspected and Panchnama was prepared which is an

Exhibit P-6. The deceased's body was lying on a gravel road about 40 feet

east of the hand pump in front of accused's house. The deceased had a

wound on her right forehead caused by a sharp weapon like a tangia. The

dead body had been sent through Constable Jaan Singh for postmortem to

Community Health Centre, Singhpur. On 28

th

August 2024, he had arrested

accused in the presence of the witnesses and an arrest memo Exhibit P-18

was prepared. At the same location when accused Bifaiya Baiga was

questioned in the presence of witnesses chunni Baiga and Kailash Tripathi,

the accused stated that he had washed a hammer resembling an axe ( tangiya)

in the canal, hidden it in the attic of his house and that he would recover it.

Based on the information provided by the accused, he recorded the

6 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

memorandum of the spot Exhibit P-19 in presence of the witnesses and

seized an iron piece hammer hidden in the attic of his house, which looked

like an axe. it also appeared from his evidence that seized articles was sent to

FSL, Sagar for forensic examination.

14. From the evidence of M.V. Prajapati (PW 15), it appears that he had

written merg number 22 / 14 Exhibit P3 on the basis of Dehati merg

Intimation Exhibit P-1. Similarly, on the basis of the Dehati Nalshi, crime

number 160/14 was registered against the accused under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code .

15. Kailash Tripathi (PW-16) stated in his examination-in-Chief that Police

had enquired about crime from accused, but he denied that anything was

seized from accused in his presence. He admitted his signature on Exhibit P-

20. This witness has been declared hostile by prosecution.

16. Similarly, from the evidence of the Chunnu Baiga (PW-17), it appears

that the accused took out an iron axe from his house and gave it to the police.

17. From the evidence of Purushottam Singh (PW-1), it appears that this

witness went to the police station with Dehati Nalshi and merg intimation.

On 10.09.2014, Constable Jaan Singh of Singhpur Police Station brought a

sealed packet from Community Health Centre, Singhpur which had a written

seal containing the red and white coloured towel of deceased Puniya Bai and

a sealed sample of CHC Singhpur and handed it over to head Constable

Awadhraj Singh (PW-2) in his presence. The above fact is also corroborated

by Awadh Raj Singh (PW-2).

18. Mohammed Imtiyaz Khan (PW-7) had stated that he visited the place of

occurrence where he took 10 photographs of the dead body and its

7 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

surroundings. He had given said photograph to the police. The photographs

are articles 'A to J'.

19. Thus, on analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear

that Hariram Baiga (PW-4) had seen the accused hitting Pooniya Bai with an

axe. It is also clear from his statement that at the time of the incident,

Pooniya Bai had come to the handpump to take out water. It was through this

witness that other persons came to know that accused Bifaiya Baiga had

killed the deceased by hitting her with an axe. Dehati Merg Intimation

(Exhibit P1) has been written by H.S. Pandey (PW-13 ) on the basis of

information given by Hariram Baiga. It is also clearly mentioned in the

Dehati Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) that the deceased Puniya Bai was

killed with an axe by accused Bifaiya Baiga. It would also be necessary to

mention here that the FSL report, Exhibit P-23 reveals that human blood was

found on the weapon recovered from the accused.

20. The main argument made by the learned counsel for appellant is that in

this case, only one witness Hariram Baiga (PW-4) was said to have seen the

incident but apart from this witness, there was no other eye witness to

corroborate the testimony of the complainant and therefore, it would not be

appropriate to hold the accused guilty merely on the basis of statement of

this witness because this witness had admitted in his cross-examination that

he had an enmity with the accused.

21. The above argument of learned counsel for the appellant is not

acceptable because the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded merely

on the ground that he had enmity with the accused. It would be necessary to

mention here that his house is adjacent to the incident site. In such a

8 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

situation, it is natural for this witness to be present at the scene of the

incident. In the cross-examination of this witness, no contradiction or

omission has been found on the statement written during the investigation,

on the basis of which his statement should be disbelieved. The statement of

this witness has been recorded by the investigating officer H.S.Pandey (PW-

13) on the date of the incident itself, in which this witness had given

complete details of the incident. It would also be necessary to mention here

that the number of witnesses is not necessary to prove any fact, rather, the

quality of evidence given by the witness is important. In this regard, the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs

<>

The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614

<>

is relevant. Paras 10 to 12 of the

aforesaid judgment is relevant which reads as under:-

" 10. ..................... It is not necessary specifically to

notice the other decisions of the different High Courts

in India in which the court insisted or corroboration of

the testimony of a single witness, not as a proposition of

law, but in view of the circumstances of those cases. On

a consideration of the relevant authorities and the

provisions of the Evidence Act, the following

propositions maybe safely stated as firmly established:

(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the

testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated.

One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a

number of other witnesses of indifferent character.

(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute,

courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases

where the nature of the testimony of the single witness

itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration

should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a

child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of

an accomplice or of an analogous character.

(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single

witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts

and circumstances of each case and no general rule can

be laid down in a matter like this and much depends

upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom

the case comes.

11. In view of these considerations, we have no

9 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder

case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses,

is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian

Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that “no

particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be

required for the proof of any fact”. The legislature

determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due

consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be

necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any

particular number of witnesses. In England, both before

and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

there have been a number of statutes as set out in

Sarkar's Law of Evidence — 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and

1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a

single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted

on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule

recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The section

enshrines the well recognized maxim that “Evidence has

to be weighed and not counted”. Our Legislature has

given statutory recognition to the fact that

administration of justice may be hampered if a

particular number of witnesses were to be insisted

upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed

in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those

cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where

determination of guilt depends entirely on

circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist

upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony

of a single witness only could be available in proof of

the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the

discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The

matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of

each case and the quality of the evidence of the single

witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or

rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be

entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the

conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as

the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the

testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an

accused person may be established on the testimony of

a single witness, even though a considerable number of

witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of

the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is

a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is

concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of

the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may

be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

10 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

12. In the first category of proof, the court should

have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either

way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony

of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or

suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or

subornation. In the second category, the court equally

has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the

third category of cases, that the court has to be

circumspect and has to look for corroboration in

material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or

circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on

plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the

oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist

on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will

be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.

Situations may arise and do arise where only a single

person is available to give evidence in support of a

disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully

such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is

reliable and free from all taints which tend to render

oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to

act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many

precedents where the court had to depend and act upon

the testimony of a single witness in support of the

prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for

example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony

of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral

testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a

participator in crime. But, where there are no such

exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of

the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony

of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have

therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony

of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence

in support of the prosecution."

22. If the present case is considered in the context of the above theory, then

it is clear that in this case also, the only eye-witness Hariram Baiga (PW-4)

has been examined by the prosecution but his testimony is highly reliable. It

was through this witness that information about the incident was given to the

husband of deceased and other witnesses. This witness gave information

about the incident to the police on the date of the incident. The statement of

11 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)

<>

JUDGE

<>

this witness has been recorded by the Investigating Officer on the date of the

incident itself. In this regard, the law laid by the Supreme Court in case

of Chuhar singh vs State of Hariyana, AIR 1977SC 386

<>

is also relevant.

<>

Para

4 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant which reads as under:-

<>

"

<>

........

<>

The fact that the prosecution has been able to

examine but one eyewitness to the occurrence cannot

detract from the strength of its case. What is important

is not how many witnesses have been examined by the

prosecution but what is the nature and quality of

evidence on which it relies. The evidence of a single

witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host

of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple

charge of hurt.............".

23. In view of the foregoing analysis, in our opinion, the prosecution on the

basis of credible evidence succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that

appellant is guilty for committing the aforesaid offence. Thus, we do not find

any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, warranting interference

by this Court.

24. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

<>

.

Rao

12 CRA-1118-2016NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2345