S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. The Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death and accordingly made a reference to the Delhi High Court for confirmation of his death. The appellant filed an appeal before High Court against his conviction. The High Court rejected the reference but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment under Section 302 and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by special leave.
2. A detailed narration of the prosecution is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to respect the same. This appears to be a case of patricide in which the appellant is said to have murdered his father on the suspicion that his father had an Illicit intimacy with his wife during his absence from Delhi. The occurrence took place in the morning of 28th September, 1971 when the appellant entered the house of the deceased and gave an axe blow on his neck cutting the same. The first Information Report was lodged by Raj Pal, PW 28 at about 4.45 a.m. i.e. within two hours of the occurrence as the Police station Najalgarh was at a distance of six miles from the place of occurrence. The Central evidence against the appellant consists of the testimony of PW 20 Charan Singh and more particularly his evidence before the committing magistrate which has been marked as Ext. P 20 A, corroborated by the evidence of PW 22 Prithi Singh and further corroborated by the recovery of blood stained clothes from the accused when he was arrested by the police on 28th September 1971 at 2.00 p.m. The Sereologist's report shows that the blood stains on the clothes of the accused were of the same group as that of the deceased. This is a very important circumstance to corroborate the prosecution case against the appellant. The High Court and the Sessions Judge have fully considered the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence furnished by the recovery of the blood stained clothes and have held that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Mr. Warshney appearing for the appellant has submitted that no reliance should have been placed on the evidence of the PW 20 Charan Singh because he had resiled from the statement made before the committing court when be deposed before the Sessions Court. It is true that this witness tried to give a go by to his previous statement in the committing court but at the same time he admitted most of the statements made by him before the committing court to be correct. The witness has not alleged that his statement before the committing court was given under pressure of the police. Normally, a witness who makes two inconsistent statements is not reliable but where the court is satisfied that the earlier statement was true that would not debar the court from acting on such evidence. Moreover both the courts had been impressed by the evidence of PW 20 before the committing court and have held that the said statement was true. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and Ors. : 1SCR298 this Court while dealing with credibility of such witnesses observed as follows :
It is, therefore, clear that the statement of the witness before the committing court was true and he is falsely resiling from the same in order to protect the respondent ...The witness further admits that whatever he said before the committing Magistrate was not due to police pressure. In these circumstances, therefore, there was intrinsic circumstances which clearly go to show that the statements the two witnesses had made before the committing Magistrate were true.
Thus, there are cogent reasons and intrinsic circumstances to lend support to the inference that the statements given by these witnesses before the committing court were in fact true and correct, and the Sessions Judge, therefore, was right in relying on these statements.
Moreover, as indicated above the statement of PW 20/A is corroborated by the evidence of PW 22 and recovery of blood stained clothes from the possession of the appellant. This Court will not re appraise that evidence in appeal by special leave. It was then argued that there was no reliable evidence to prove the motive for the murder. As there is direct and clear evidence which connects the accused with the murder of the deceased, the question of motive becomes academic. The High Court has given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence of recovery and corroborative evidence of PW 22 We are unable to find any error of law in the findings arrived at by the High Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.