JUDGMENT 1. - Since these two appeals one by accused Santa Singh and the other by the State are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar dated November 29, 1980, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the Sessions Judge convicted accused Santasingh under Section 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/- on the first count and four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- under the second count, and acquitted the accused Kanwarsingh Gamdoorsingh of the offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 307 & 307/34, Indian Penal Code. Accused Santasingh challenges his conviction while the State challenges the acquittal of Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh. 2. The incident is alleged to have taken place on Sun-sink on April 10, 1979 in Chak 14-ML Police Station, Muklawa, district Sri Ganganagar, in which Jagdishsingh and Hardeosingh, still in their teens, were gunned down and their father Nayabsingh was severally injured. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that accused Santasingh, Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh are residents of Chak 14 ML Kanwarasingh is the son of accused Santasingh. PW 1 Nayabsingh is also the resident of the same place. He had two sons Hardeosingh, aged about 18 year and Jagdish Singh, aged about 11 years. There was a dispute between the appellant and PW 1 Nayabsingh relating to water channel. Accused Santasingh had instituted a suit in that respect against Nayabsingh. It ended in a compromise. The accused Santasingh was, however, not happy with this compromise. In the afternoon of April 16, 1979, Nayabsingh and his sons Hardeo Singh & Jagdishsingh took their tractor and trolly to leave labourers at Police Station, Head. After leaving the labourers there, they all were returning in the tractor. Hardeosingh was driving the tractor. Nayabsingh was sitting on the left side of the mud-guard while Jagdish Singh was sitting was on the right side of the mud-guard. The way passes through the fields of accused Santasingh as shown in site plan Ex. P 20. When the tractor was passing through square No. 21 of accused Santasingh, the three miscreants Santasingh Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh appeared from the opposite side. Gamdoorsingh was having a lathi while he remaining two had guns. The way passes through the fields of accused Santasingh as shown in site plan Ex. P 20. When the tractor was passing through square No. 21 of accused Santasingh, the three miscreants Santasingh Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh appeared from the opposite side. Gamdoorsingh was having a lathi while he remaining two had guns. Accused Santasingh fired his gun at Hardeosingh which hit him on the left chest. Accused Kanwarasingh fired his gun at Jagdish Singh which hit him on the right chest. Accused Santasingh again fired his gun at Nayabsingh (PW 1) which hit his left leg Hardeosingh could not keep control over the steering wheel of the tractor and the tractor moved a little further. The miscreants thereafter fled away towards South-East. Nayabsingh raised alarm. Hearing his cries, his wife Mst. Daleep Kanwar and many persons including Majorsingh, Sohansingh and Chhotusingh came there. Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh were kneeling on the steering wheel of the tractor. Major Singh brought his tractor with a trolly. In the trolly, Hardeosingh, and Jagdish Singh were placed. From there, they were brought to their village where they stayed for 30/45 minutes. From there they proceeded to Government Dispensary, Codsar, where they reached at about 8.15 pm. PW 3 Dr. S.K Sharma and PW 5 Bhola Ram Sarpanch were sitting in the residential quarter of the doctor. They were called out. Dr. Sharma, on seeing Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh, found their condition precarious. He administered necessary medicines and opined to take them to a bigger hospital for treatment. The party, from there, moved towards Raisinghnagar. The doctor and the Sarpanch also accompained them. From there, they came to Police Station, Muklawa, where they found a jeep. The injured were placed in the jeep. The Station House Officer Magan Singh (PW 9) also joined them. While they were in their way to Raisinghnagar, Hardeo Singh and Jagdish Singh succumbed to the injuries. The Station House Officer recorded the statement (Ex. PI) of Nayab Singh (PW 1) and treating it to be the First Information Report, registered a case. The investigation ensued. The S.H.O. deputed the police party to keep a watch on the site of the occurrence. He prepared the inquest report of the victims dead bodies. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead bodies was conducted at about 10.30 a.m. by PW 7 Dr. The investigation ensued. The S.H.O. deputed the police party to keep a watch on the site of the occurrence. He prepared the inquest report of the victims dead bodies. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead bodies was conducted at about 10.30 a.m. by PW 7 Dr. Ganga Ram Chaudhary the then Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Raisinghnagar. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Hardeo Singh: External: "An oval wound 1 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. with bruished and inverted edges situated in the sixth left inter-coastal space anteriorly just lateral to left boarder of the sternum obsicle upward and posteriorly communicating with the thorasic cavity. On dissection, a lacerated wound seen on anterior wall of right verticle of the heart measuring 1 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. On further examination, a lacerated wound measuring 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. seen in posterior wall of right auricle. Left thorasic cavity was full of partially clotted blood. On further examination, a shot seen in anterior part of vertebral column imbedded partially in third thorasic vertebrae-shot removed and sealed. Wound was ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire arm." Internal: "Paricardium ruptured." 4. According to the doctor, the cause of death was fire-arm injury causing rupture of right ventricle and right auricle of heart leading to severe haemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 5. The doctor noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Jagdish Singh: External: "An oval wound 3/4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. with bruise and inverted edges situated 3.5 c.m. below the middle 3rd part of the right clevicle on anterior surface of right chest. It was directed downward medially and posteriorly communicating with the thorasic cavity. On dissection, there was a lacerated wound on upper part and anterior surface right lung and pleura covering that part of the lung, wound measured 1 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. and communicating with a lacerated wound measuring 1.25 c.m. x 1 c.m. on posterior surface of right Jung most medial part of it was near the vertebral column. Partially clotted blood seen in the wound of lung. On further dissection a hole was seen in 4th thorasic vertebra which passed obliquely from right to left side. The hole measured 1.25 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right side and 1.5 c.m. x 1.25 c.m. on left side. Partially clotted blood seen in the wound of lung. On further dissection a hole was seen in 4th thorasic vertebra which passed obliquely from right to left side. The hole measured 1.25 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right side and 1.5 c.m. x 1.25 c.m. on left side. On further examination, muscle tissues were found ruptured in the fifth left inter-costal space and a shot found under the skin in the sixth inter-costal space. Shot removed and sealed." Internal: "Thorax--Right thorasic cavity full of clotted and unclotted blood." The cause of death, according to doctor, was fire-arm injury causing rupture of right lung, severe haemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem report prepared by him is Ex. P 6. The gun-shot injuries of both the victims were ante-mortem. The doctor also examined the injuries of Nayab Singh. One gun-shot injury was found on his right thigh. The injury report prepared by him is Ex. P 1 lead-pellet (lead buck shot) was recovered lodged in each dead body. They were removed and sealed by the doctor. The S.H.O seized and sealed the blood stained clothes of the victims and arrived on the spot on April 17, 1979. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P 20 along with the site inspection memo Ex P 26. He found wads and wad-pieces scattered on the scene of the incident. He seized and sealed them. He seized and sealed the bloodstained soil from there. The miscreants were arrested on April 22, 1979. In consequence of the information furnished by accused Santa Singh, one empty cartridge case of 12-Bore S.B.B.L. gun was recovered. At the time of his arrest, accused Santa Singh was having one 12-Bore S.B.B.L. gun and one live cartridge with him. The gun and the cartridge were seized and sealed. Human blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased-victims. The 12-bore S.B.B.L. gun recovered from the possession of accused Santa Singh was found serviceable and that it was fired, though the time of the last fire could not be determined. The gun and the cartridge were seized and sealed. Human blood was detected on the clothes of the deceased-victims. The 12-bore S.B.B.L. gun recovered from the possession of accused Santa Singh was found serviceable and that it was fired, though the time of the last fire could not be determined. On the completion of investigation, the police presented appellant Santa Singh in the Court of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34, Indian Penal Code against Gamdoor Singh, under Sections 302, 302/34, and 307/34, Indian Penal Code against Kanwar Singh and under Sections 302, 302/34 and 307, Indian Penal Code against the appellant Santa Singh. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to them, they have been falsely implicated. Accused Kanwar Singh stated that on the day of the alleged incident he was far away in Punjab. The remaining two denied their complicity in the commission of the crime. The case thereafter came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no incriminating material against Kanwar Singh and Gamdoor Singh. They were, therefore, acquitted of the offence they were charged with. The Sessions Judge, however, found the prosecution case substantially true against the appellant Santa Singh. He was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Hence these appeals. In their respective appeals, accused Santa Singh challenges his conviction while the State challenges the acquittal of Kanwara Singh & Gamdoor Singh. 5. We have heard Mr. M.L. Garg learned counsel for the accused persons and Mr. L.S. Udawat learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 6. Mr. Garg did not challenge the opinion of PW 7 Dr. Gangaram Chaudhary about the cause of death of the two deceased-victims Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh, according to w horn, the cause of death of both of them was gun-shot injuries. We have also gone through the testimony of Dr. Gangaram Chaudhary and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh was not natural but homicidal. We have also gone through the testimony of Dr. Gangaram Chaudhary and find no reasons to distrust his opinion. The death of Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh was not natural but homicidal. It also stands proved from the testimony of Dr. Chaudhary that PW 1 Nayab Singh sustained a gunshot injury on his right thigh as mentioned in his injury report Ex. P 17. 7. Accused Santasingh was convicted on the sole testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh. His testimony as against the appellant was found substantially true. However, his testimony against the acquitted accused Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh was not found dependable and reliable. It may be mentioned that according to the finding of the trial court, shots more than one were fired. The appellant Santasingh fired two shots but who fired the third shot killing Jagdish Singh could not be established by the prosecution. Further, according to the learned Sessions Judge, Nayabsingh (PW 1) correctly identified the appellant Santasingh, but could not identify the two persons who were with him at the time of the incident. The ground which heavily weighed with the trial Court in acquitting Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh is that Majorsingh and other persons, who arrived on the spot in no time, were not produced by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that Nayabsingh (PW 1) disclosed the names of all the miscreants to Majorsingh, Sohansingh and Chhotusingh and as such their evidence was most material to corroborate the sole testimony of Nayabsingh. These persons were not produced in evidence for the reason that the names of Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh were not disclosed to them by PW 1 Nayab Singh. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned Sessions Judge took the view that PW 1 Nayabsingh could identify only accused Santasingh and not the others, who were accompanying him. 8. We shall first take-up the appeal of accused Santasingh. In challenging his conviction, it was contended by Mr. Garg that the sole testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh was wholly insufficient to connect him with the commission of the crime. It was argued that the testimony of the witness was not found reliable and dependable as against two out of the three miscreants. It would be, therefore, not free from risk to accept his testimony against the appellant Santasingh. It was argued that the time of the incident was much after the Sun set. It was argued that the testimony of the witness was not found reliable and dependable as against two out of the three miscreants. It would be, therefore, not free from risk to accept his testimony against the appellant Santasingh. It was argued that the time of the incident was much after the Sun set. Nayabsingh was, therefore, not in a position to correctly identify the culprits. There were major improvements in the story stated by PW 1 Nayabsingh in the Court below and it materially departed from the version disclosed by him in the FIR lodged by him. The wads and wad-pieces found on the spot could not be connected with the empty cartridges recovered at the instance of the appellant Santasingh. The prosecution also failed to establish any motive which prompted the appellant to kill the two boys. The conviction was, thus, wholly bad and unsustainable. 9. Countering these contentions, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the presence of PW 1 Nayabsingh on the spot is not open to any doubt since he is injured person who received the gun-shot injury in this incident. He is the father of the two deceased-victims and he would be the last person to screen the real offenders and to substitute the appellant in his place. The occurrence had taken place just after Sun-set when there was sufficient light. The shots were fired from a distance of not more than 130 feet. It was mid-April when the occurrence took place. Just after the Sun-set in mid April, it is not difficult for one to identify a person from a distance of 130 feet. The wads and wad-pieces found on the spot, of course, could not be connected with the empty cartridge recovered at the instance of the appellant, but that has no material consequence. No empty cartridge was found on the spot. It cannot be, therefore; said that any of the empty cartridges, which were recovered at the instance of the appellant was fired from the gun recovered from his possession. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 10. Since the fate of the prosecution case squarely rests on the testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh, it would be useful to read it briefly, keeping (he site plan Ex. P 20 in view. Site plan Ex. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 10. Since the fate of the prosecution case squarely rests on the testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh, it would be useful to read it briefly, keeping (he site plan Ex. P 20 in view. Site plan Ex. P 20 shows that the fields of the appellant and PW 1 Nayabsingh are situate contiguous & a public way passes through them. There is also public way in the South of these fields Square No. 1 of Murrabba No. 21 belonging to one Milkiyatsingb is situate on the South of this way as shown in site plan Ex. P 20. PW 1 Nayabsingh deposed that at Sun-set, he was returning on his tractor from P S Head where he had gone to drop his labourers. His sons Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh were with him on the tractor. Hardeosingh was driving the tractor. He was sitting on the left mudguard and Jagdish Singh was sitting on the right mud-guard. When the tractor reached Kila No. 21 of accused Santa Singh, he saw accused Santa Singh, Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh. Gamdoorsingh was having a Lathi while Santasingh and Kanwarasingh had one 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun each. Accused Santasingh fired the gun towards Hardeosingh, which hit him on his chest. Accused Kanwarasingh fired his gun at Jagdish Singh, which, also, hit him on his chest. Accused Santasingh again fired his gun, which hit him (Nayabsingh) on his thigh. Some pellets of his shot also hit the tyre of the tractor which resulted in its tear. Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh knelt on the steering wheel of the tractor. The tractor left the way and moved towards Kila No. 25, as shown in site plan Ex. P 20. The tractor thereafter stopped. The witness further stated that he raised cries. Majorsingh, Sohansingh, Chhotusingh, his wife Mst. Daleep Kanwar and his servant Swaroopsingh arrived there. Before they could come, the miscreants fled away towards South-East. Major Singh brought a tractor and a trolly. In the trolly, were placed Hardeo Singh and Jagdish Singh. From there they went to his house, made the necessary arrangements and proceeded towards Codsar. It took 30/45 minutes before they could leave for Codsar. There is a dispensary at Codsar and the doctor was contacted, who was sitting with Sarpanch Bholu Ram (PW 5) in his quarter. In the trolly, were placed Hardeo Singh and Jagdish Singh. From there they went to his house, made the necessary arrangements and proceeded towards Codsar. It took 30/45 minutes before they could leave for Codsar. There is a dispensary at Codsar and the doctor was contacted, who was sitting with Sarpanch Bholu Ram (PW 5) in his quarter. The doctor examined Hardeo Singh and Jagdish Singh, administered them some medicines and advised to take them to Raisinghnagar where there is a big hospital. The doctor and the Sarpanch also joined them and the party proceeded towards Raisinghnagar. In the way, they stopped at Muklawa Police Station, where there was a jeep. Bholu Ram went to Police Station and brought the jeep along with the S.H.O. Magan Singh. All of them boarded the jeep and proceeded towards Raisinghnagar. In the way, Hardeo Singh and Jagdish Singh succumbed to the injuries. The S.H O Magan Singh recorded the statement Ex. P 1 of Nayab Singh (PW 1). The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of this witness as dependable and reliable against accused Santa Singh, but not against the remaining two. 11. The contention of Mr. Garg is that the testimony of this witness has been wrongly relied upon by the trial Court. It was argued that the occurrence had taken place at Sun set. It had become dark by the time the incident took place and as such the visibility was poor. PW 1 Nayab Singh was, therefore, not in a position to correctly identify the culprit. He some how or other got the impression that accused Santasingh was one of the miscreants. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention and find no substance in it. The trial Court, after going through the various Panchangs concluded that the occurrence, in all probabilities, should have taken place at about 7.15 p.m. The incident had taken place in the mid of April. The sun set at 6.45 p.m. on the day of the incident. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that even after the sun set, there was sufficient light and PW 1 Nayab Singh was in a position to see and identify the miscreants. It is in the knowledge of everybody that after sun set, there is sufficient light for some time and the visibility remains clear. 12. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that even after the sun set, there was sufficient light and PW 1 Nayab Singh was in a position to see and identify the miscreants. It is in the knowledge of everybody that after sun set, there is sufficient light for some time and the visibility remains clear. 12. PW 1 Nayab Singh is very positive and categoric that it was not dark when the incident had taken place. Though the sun had set, there was sufficient visibility and he had identified the culprits. His testimony on this point could not be successfully shaken. It is true that the shots were fired from distance of 135 feet. It is not at all difficult to identify the known person from a distance of 135 feet after sun set when there is visibility. There is yet another reason to arrive at a conclusion that the visibility was not poor. If visibility was not there, the culprits could not judge the position of their targets and could not fire the guns with such accuracy and excellence as to hit both this the victims on their chest. We are unable to conceive a situation that in the dark the miscreants would fire the shots on their targets with such success. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Garg that PW 1 Nayab Singh was not in a position to correctly identify the assailants. The contention fails. 13. It was next argued by Mr. Garg that the witness speaks of three shots whereas there was only one shot which hit all the three occupants of the tractor. It was urged that since it is a case of a single shot and the witness speaks of the three shots, his testimony does not inspire confidence and must be straight away dismissed. We agree with Mr. Garg that if it is a case of a single shot, the testimony of PW 1 Nayab Singh stands reduced to pulp and no credence can be given to it, but it is not a case of single shot. It is a case of more than one shots. The Medical evidence of Dr. Gangaram Chaudhary (PW 7), who conducted the medico-legal autopsy, shows that the gun shot injury of the deceased Hardeo Singh was downwards to upwards and the gun shot injury of Jagdish Singh was upwards to downwards. It is a case of more than one shots. The Medical evidence of Dr. Gangaram Chaudhary (PW 7), who conducted the medico-legal autopsy, shows that the gun shot injury of the deceased Hardeo Singh was downwards to upwards and the gun shot injury of Jagdish Singh was upwards to downwards. The position of the injuries of both these deceased-victims clearly shows that they could not be the result of a single shot. Pellets coming out from a single shot cannot injure one causing injury downwards to upwards and causing injury upwards to downwards to the other. The nature of the injuries of the deceased-victims clearly reveals that shots more than one were fired. More over, there was distance between Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh. Hardeosingh was driving the tractor while Jagdish Singh was sitting on its right mud guard. There was, thus, some distance between them. The dispersion of the pellets resulting from a shot is usually forty inches. If it was a case of single shot, the three persons sitting on the tractor could not have been hit and the tyre of the tractor could not have received the damage due to the pellet. These circumstances unerringly point out that it is not a case of single shot but more than one shots. 14. Mr. Garg also wanted us to disbelieve the testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh on the ground that in his statement Ex. P 1 (later on treated as the FIR PW 1 Nayabsingh deposed that the culprits were standing in the way and had blocked. In his statement recorded during trial, he deposed that miscreants were standing or taking position near the North wall of Kila No. 1 of Murabba No. 24 belonging to one Malkiyatsingh. It was also argued that wads/wad-pieces were found scattered at a distance of thirty feet from the place shown by mark 'B' in Kila No. 1 of Murabba No. 24 of Malkiyat Singh. It was argued that the departure amd improvement have been introduced by PW 1 Nayabsingh in order to fit in what was found when the site was inspected. We again find no force in the contention. No doubt, in Ex. P 1, Nayabsingh PW 1 stated that the miscreants were standing in the way and had blocked it. There is also a way in the North of Kila No. 1 of Murabba No. 24 of Malkiyatsingh. We again find no force in the contention. No doubt, in Ex. P 1, Nayabsingh PW 1 stated that the miscreants were standing in the way and had blocked it. There is also a way in the North of Kila No. 1 of Murabba No. 24 of Malkiyatsingh. The miscreants Were standing on the extreme North at point 'E' of the aforesaid Kila No. 1. PW 1 Nayabsingh was therefore, correct in stating that the miscreants were standing in the way to block it. This is not departure or an improvement on what he stated in Ex. P 1. An illiterate rustic villager cannot be expected to be so precise so as to correctly describe the place where the miscreants were standing. PW 1 Nayabsingh never deposed that the miscreants were standing in the way which passes through the fields of the accused. The contention has, thus, no merit. 15. In impeaching the testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh, Mr. Garg further argued that the party arrived at Police Station, Muklawa at about 9.30 p.m. PW 5 Bholuram Sarpanch went to the Police Station and lodged report Ex. P 15-A which was written in the Rojnamcha. PW 5 Bholuram admits that the names of the miscreants were disclosed to him by PW 1 Nayabsingh before he (Bholuram) lodged the report Ex. P 15-A. It was argued that the name of none of the miscreants has been mentioned in Ex. P 15-A. That shows that by the time Ex, P 15-A was lodged, the identity of the miscreants could not be established. The contention is no doubt, attractive at the first glance but on a close scrutiny, turns out to be hollow. Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh had sustained gun shot injuries on their chest. Their condition was rapidly deteriorating so much so that Dr. S.K. Sharma PW 3 Madical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Godsar advised to immediately take them to a big hospital at Raisinghngar. The party was, thus more concerned with the deteriorating condition of Hardeosingh and Jagdish Singh. Every minute was precious. Bholu Ram, therefore, lodged report Ex. P 15-A stating therein that two boys had received gun-shot injuries and their condition was precarious and was rapidly deteriorating. The condition of Hardeosingh and Jagdishsingh was so rapidly deteriorating that even the S.H.O. Magansingh (PW 9) provided his jeep to the party and himself accompained them to reach Raisinghnagar. Every minute was precious. Bholu Ram, therefore, lodged report Ex. P 15-A stating therein that two boys had received gun-shot injuries and their condition was precarious and was rapidly deteriorating. The condition of Hardeosingh and Jagdishsingh was so rapidly deteriorating that even the S.H.O. Magansingh (PW 9) provided his jeep to the party and himself accompained them to reach Raisinghnagar. The party thought it proper to first move Hardeosingh and Jagdishsingh for medical treatment without wasting time in the formalities of lodging the regular First Information Report. Any body placed in this situation would act as PW 5 Bholu Ram and otter persons of the party acted. The conduct of PW 5 Bholu Ram and the members of the party is quite natural and should be what is expected in suck circumstances. As such, the non-mentioning of the miscreants' names in Ex. P 15-A has no material consequence and does not adversely off speak against the prosecution. 16. Mr. Garg invited our attention to report Ex. P 31 of the State Forensic Science Laboratory and contended by wads/wad-pieces found on the place of the incident and the buck shots (lead pellets) found in the victims' dead bodies did not come out from 12-Bore cartridge case (Article 5) recovered at the instance of the accused Santasingh, though it Was fired from 12-bore S.B.B.L. gun (Article 4) recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest. It was argued that since the wads/wad-pieces and buck shots could not be connected with empty cartridge case (Article 5), it should be inferred that no shot was fired by accused Santasingh. We find no force in the contention. Accused Santasingh was arrested on April 22, 1979 and the empty cartridge case (Article 5) was recovered on April 25, 1979. The recovered cartridge case is of Eley Kynoch 12 Mark. Report Ex. P 31 shows that wads/ Wad-pieces found on the spot and buck shots found lodged in the victims' dead bodies could not come out from empty cartridge case (Article 5) because these types of wads are normally used in 12-Bore Gavelot Paris Cartidge made in France. It is possible that accused Santasingh might have fired some other cartridge from his 12-Bore S.B.B.L. gun (Article 4) and got another empty cartridge case (Article 5) recovered. The matter would have been important if any empty cartridge case was found on the spot. It is possible that accused Santasingh might have fired some other cartridge from his 12-Bore S.B.B.L. gun (Article 4) and got another empty cartridge case (Article 5) recovered. The matter would have been important if any empty cartridge case was found on the spot. But no empty cartridge case was found on the spot and only wads and wad pieces were found there. Gun (Article 4) recovered from the appellant's possession was found serviceable and further found to have been fired, though the exact time of its last fire could not be determined, vide Ex. P 31. In these circumstances, no importance can be attached to the contention that since wads and wad-pieces found on the spot could not come out from empty cartridge case (Article 5), no shot was fired by the appellant. 17. It is true that the testimony of PW 1 Nayab Singh has been found reliable as regards the appellant Santasingh and not reliable or dependable as against the acquitted accused Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh. The main reason why his testimony was partly believed and partly disbelieved is that he did not disclose the names of Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh immediately after the occurrence to Majorsingh, Sohansingh and Chhotu Singh, who arrived on the spot in no time. He also did not disclose the names of these two accused persons to Dr. S K. Sharma PW 3). However, the witness disclosed the name of accused Santasingh at the earliest to Majorsingh and others and also to Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW 3). The witness has, thus, given a consistent and formidable story against accused Santa Singh. It is the duty of the Court to properly scrutinise the testimony of a witness. It is open to it to believe the testimony in part and to disbelieve the other part. We find no merit in the contention that simply because the testimony of a witness is found weak in respect of some accused persons, it should be rejected in toto. Rejecting the testimony of a witness in toto simply because the testimony is weak in respect of some other accused, would lead to disasterous results. Of course, caution should be taken that the part of the testimony which is relied upon is such that it can be safely accepted. The testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh as against the appellant Santasingh is firm and formidable, sted fast and categoric. Of course, caution should be taken that the part of the testimony which is relied upon is such that it can be safely accepted. The testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh as against the appellant Santasingh is firm and formidable, sted fast and categoric. His testimony is sufficient in all respects to seek the conviction of accused Santasingh. A conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided it is of sterling worth. The testimony of PW 1 Nayab Singh is of that sterling worth, on which the conviction of accused Santa Singh can be safely based. He was rightly convicted. No interference is called for. 18. Coming to the State appeal against accused Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh, it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that they were wrongly acquitted. It was argued that they were correctly identified by PW 1 Nayabsingh. Here is a case of more than one shots. It is, therefore, probable that one of the shots was fired by accused Kanwarsingh from his gun. Accused Gamdoorsingh was with a lathi in his hand. The murders were, thus, committed in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. The acquittal was, therefore etroneous. We have taken the submission into consideration, but find no substance in it. According to PW 1 Nayab Singh, when he raised cries, Majorsingh, Sohansingh and Chhotusingh arrived on the spot in no time. He narrated the incident to them and disclosed the names of all the three accused persons to them. Unfortunately, Majorsingh, Sohansingh and Chhotusingh or any of them, who were the independent persons, were not produced in evidence by the prosecution, though their names have been mentioned in the calendar of the witnesses. The reason for not producing them in evidence is that in their police statements, these three persons did not state that Kanwarasingh and Gamdoor Singh were also with accused Santasingh and that Kanwarasingh had also fired the shot. It was thus reason that bail was granted to Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh during trial. Apart from that, the testimony of Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW 3) is highly injurious to the prosecution. He stated that PW 1 Nayabsingh disclosed him the name of only accused Santasingh and not of Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh. Dr. S.K. Sharma is an independent witness having no bias against or soft corner for any of the parties. Apart from that, the testimony of Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW 3) is highly injurious to the prosecution. He stated that PW 1 Nayabsingh disclosed him the name of only accused Santasingh and not of Kanwarsingh and Gamdoorsingh. Dr. S.K. Sharma is an independent witness having no bias against or soft corner for any of the parties. It is, thus, clear that the names of accused Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh were not disclosed by PW 1 Nayabsingh till be lodged the First Information Report Ex. P 1. 19. An attempt was made by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW 2 Mst. Daleep Kanwar and PW 4 Srawansingh stated that Nayabsingh (PW 1) disclosed the names of Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh to them as the miscreants when they reached the spot. Both these witnesses, thus, corroborated the testimony of PW 1 Nayabsingh. We find no merit in the contention. Both these witnesses were examined by the police on April 18, 1979 though both of them were present in the hospital at Raisinghnagar when the statement Ex. P 1 of PW 1 Nayabsingh was recorded. The late examination of these two witnesses by the Investigating Officer speaks much against their credibility. No fire-arm was recovered at the instance of accused Kanwarsingh. No overt-act is attributed to accused Gamdoor Singh. In these circumstances it cannot be said that these two accused persons were wrongly acquitted. A finding of fact recorded by the trial Court should not be disturbed unless it appears that the finding is perverse or wholly erroneous and unsustainable. Where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the Court of appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely because it would, sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view. The acquittal is to be interfered with only on substantial and compelling reasons. Here is a case where the trial Court has advanced cogent and convicing reasons for the acquittal of accused Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh. No error in reading or scrutinising the evidence is there on the part of the trial Court. There are no substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal of accused Kanwara Singh. Their acquittal is maintained. 20. In the result, the conviction and sentence of accused Santasingh under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the acquittal of accused Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh of the offences charged with, are maintained. There are no substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal of accused Kanwara Singh. Their acquittal is maintained. 20. In the result, the conviction and sentence of accused Santasingh under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the acquittal of accused Kanwarasingh and Gamdoorsingh of the offences charged with, are maintained. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******