Hansaria, J. — This appeal is by four convicts who have been found guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for life. 2. Deceased Rajkumar was a labour of the West Jalinga tea garden. On 9. 6 "2, he came to the house of PW 5 Nilakanta who is also a labour of the aforesaid tea garden. Rajkumar came to the house of this witness around 7 PM to have some discussion with Suparuo, a sister of the witness, relating to the damage to many houses in the garden due to storm. As the younger brother of the witness was lying ill, Rajkumar spent sometime asking the well-being of the younger brother. By this time it was 10.30/11 PM. As it was quite late by the time deceased left the house of the witness, Nilakaita gave company to Rajkumar. He then had a torch with him. After crossing the main road, the two persons came to the lane by which one has to travel to reach the house of the deceased. When they arrived near the gate of the- house of the accused Kartick, PW 5 saw Kaitick and Ram Karan waiting in front of the former's' house. At the relevant time, the witness was 3/4 cubits, ahead of the deceased. After crossing the house of Kartick, the witness heard a sound coming from behind. When he turned back and flashed the torch, he saw that accused-Kartick and Ram Karan seized Rajkumar and fell him on the ground. Immediately thereafter, he saw accused-appellants Bijan and Kumud coming and hitting Rajkumar with a spear and axe. This was too much to frighten this witness as a result of which the torch dropped down from his hand. The witness ran towards the house of Rajkumar which was about 25/30 nals away from the place of occurrence. Reaching the home of Rajkumar, the witness informed the son of the victim all about the occurrence. Pradip, the son of deceased, also called his uncle Bipin. Then with some others they went towards the place of occurrence running and when they reached the spot they found some persons fleeing away. Reaching near Rajkumar the party saw him lying injured and crying for water. On Bipin's enquiring about the occurrence, the witness told him what he had seen. Then with some others they went towards the place of occurrence running and when they reached the spot they found some persons fleeing away. Reaching near Rajkumar the party saw him lying injured and crying for water. On Bipin's enquiring about the occurrence, the witness told him what he had seen. The party also found an axe and spear lying nearby, also the torch which got dropped from the hands of the deceased. 3. Injured Rajkumar was brought to his house and Bipin was sent to PW 6 Surath who was the Panchayat President at the relevant time. Doctor's help was also sought and after giving first-aid he advised to remove the injured to the hospital. On way, the party went to Dwarband Police who advised removal of the injured to the Medical College. Reaching there, the injured was declared dead. 4. In the meantime, Surath in the company of Bipin first contacted the thana at the Medici! College which advised them to go to the Silchar thana. On reaching there the ejahar was lodged whereupon the police came to the place of occurrence and proceeded with the investigation, at the close of which four accused-appellants we're sent up for trial under section .:02/34 of the Penal Code. In the trial that commenced, the prosecution examined eight witnesses of whom only three, namely, Nilakanta, Strath and Bipin who were examined as PWs 5, g and 7 respectively were the non-official witnesses. Among-the rest were three doctors PWs 1,2 and 3."PW 4 Narayan Chandra was the Officer-in charge of the Silchar Police Station who received the ejahar and entrusted PW 8 Mukti Pada with the investigation of the case. 5. Of the three non-official witnesses only one Ndakanta claimed to have seen the occurrence. Two others, namely, Surath and Bipin were told about the occurrence by PW 5 immediately after it had taken place. 6. As we are confronted with a case in which the eye-witness account is given by a solitary witness, let us see what is the position in law regarding conviction based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. Two others, namely, Surath and Bipin were told about the occurrence by PW 5 immediately after it had taken place. 6. As we are confronted with a case in which the eye-witness account is given by a solitary witness, let us see what is the position in law regarding conviction based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. In this connection, it has been aptly pointed out in Vadivelu vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , after referring to section 134 of the Evidence Act, stating that "(n) o particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact" that this provision has enshrined the well-recognised maxim that "evidence has to be weighed and not counted''. It was pointed out in this case that it is not seldom that a crime is witnessed by only one person and if -the accused persons were to be acquitted only on this ground in many cases guilty persons would escape. In Badri vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 560 , it was stated that what matters in this connection is quality and not quantity of evidence. In each case it is for the Court to decide whether it is reasonably satisfied to act upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person. Importance of quality of the evidence was also emphasised in Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 . 7. . This being the legal position, let us see whether we can rely on the testimony of Nilakanta who alone has deposed about assault on Rajkumar having been seen by him. We have already noted the sum and substance of the evidence given by Nilakanta. His being in the company of the deceased at the relevant time is very natural inasmuch as Rajkumar had gone to his house and it was late - almost 11 O' Clock when the deceased had left his house. The night being dark it was also natural to have a torch with him while escorting Rajkumar. In this connection, it has been strongly and strenuously urged by Shri Dey that the story of Nilakanta carrying a torch with him should not be accepted , by us inasmuch as mention of the torch has not been made in the F.I.R. nor did Nilakanta speak about this to the Investigating Officer. In this connection, it has been strongly and strenuously urged by Shri Dey that the story of Nilakanta carrying a torch with him should not be accepted , by us inasmuch as mention of the torch has not been made in the F.I.R. nor did Nilakanta speak about this to the Investigating Officer. We have duly considered this submission and, according to us, it would not be justified to entertain any doubt about Nilakanta carrying a torch for the aforesaid two reasons. 8. In so far as the non-mentioning about the torch in the F.I.R. is concerned, it may be stated, as is well-known and well-recognised, that FIR is not to contain all details inasmuch as it is not regarded as encyclopedia of the prosecution case. Though Shri Dey referred in this connection to Ram Kumar vs. State of M. P., AIR 1975 SC 1026 , which has stated that omission of important fact in the FIR affects the probability of the case is relevant under section 11 of the Evidence Act, we do not think if omission to mention about torch in the FIR can be regarded in the present case to cast doubt on the prosecution story relating to torch for the reasons already given and also because the FIR had not been lodged by Nilakanta but by PW 6 Surath who is a reported witness. We would not, therefore, regard the testimony of Nilakanta regarding his carrying a torch as an improvement of the prosecution case for which reason the decision rendered in Badruddin vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1223 , referred by Shri Dey would also not assist the appellants. The seizure of a torch light by the police on the morning hours of 10.6.82 lends further credence to this aspect of the prosecution case. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor referred us to Bankeylal vs. State of U. P., 1971 (3) SCC 184 , in which non-mentioning in the ejahar about the attack of the deceased at three different places was not given much importance. We would also give not much importance to this aspect of the case merely because nothing was mentioned in the FIR about Nilakanta not carrying a torch. We would also give not much importance to this aspect of the case merely because nothing was mentioned in the FIR about Nilakanta not carrying a torch. In so far as the nonmentioning about this fact to the Investigating Officer is concerned, it may be pointed out that the same has to be regarded as an omission and not contradiction. In this connection reference may be made to Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 , which was referred with approval in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SCC (Cri.) 228. It is well-known that every omission cannot be regarded as contradiction. It is only a vital omission which has to be given importance in this regard. 9. Another aspect of the case which has satisfied our mind relating to the credibility of the prosecution case is unfolded by PW 5 is that if the witnesses were out to falsely implicate the accused persons in the crime, those who had reached the spot on being informed by PW 5 could have as well stated that they had also recognised the assailants who were seen running from the place of occurrence when the witnesses had arrived there. This has, however, not been stated by anybody. One such person is PW 7 Bipin and his evidence is that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw some persons running away towards the North. This also is the statement made by PW 5. 10. Shri Dey then urged that the accused-persons have been falsely implicated because of appellant Kartick having filed a dacoity case amongst others against Nilakanta. The fact that such a case has been filed has been admitted by Nilakanta. But then, we would not regard the present case as a counter-blast to the aforesaid case of dacoity. This is for two reasons : First, this does not explain as to why apart from Kartick other persons were named as the accused in the case. Secondly, if this was the motive of falsely implicating the accused persons, the prosecution could have foisted Amal, Anil and others also who were implicated in the dacoity as witnesses to the occurrence or of the res gestae which has not been done by the prosecution. 11. Secondly, if this was the motive of falsely implicating the accused persons, the prosecution could have foisted Amal, Anil and others also who were implicated in the dacoity as witnesses to the occurrence or of the res gestae which has not been done by the prosecution. 11. We are also not satisfied with the submission of Shri Dey that the present was a false case owing its origin to the Union rivalry. According to Shri Dey, the accused party belongs to INTUC which is affiliated to Congress Party whereas the PWs belonged to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangha. It, however, seems that there was no unit of INTUC in the garden in question as deposed by PW 5 who stated that there is no Panchayat or INTUC in their garden. Shri Dey, in this connection, brought to our notice the statement made by accused-Ram Karan while he was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has stated that he was President of the tea garden Labour Union. Ram Karan has not stated anything further in this regard. No witness has been cross-examined on the question of false involvement of the accused-persons because of any union rivalry. What PW 5 has rather deposed in this connection is that deceased Rajkumar's house was set on fire by accused Bijan, Kumud and Ram Karan along with some other persons following which an ejahar was lodged in that connection; and it was due to this grudge that Rajkumar was assaulted according to PW 5. A copy of that ejahar was exhibited in the present case as Exhibit-4 which shows that occurrence had taken place on 27.5.82. The sketch map ( Exhihit-5 ) drawn by the Investigating Officer shows that in front of the old dwelling house of deceased Rajkumar, there stood a newly constructed house just in front of it which was round in a half-burnt condition by the Investigating Officer when he inspected the place of occurrence. Whether the present occurrence had anything to do with the aforesaid incident may be doubted, but we have no doubt that the eye-witness account given by PW 5 is in any way unbelievable. 12. To out-weigh the weighty evidence of PW 5, Shri Dey has, however, brought to our notice the evidence given by PW 3 Dr. Whether the present occurrence had anything to do with the aforesaid incident may be doubted, but we have no doubt that the eye-witness account given by PW 5 is in any way unbelievable. 12. To out-weigh the weighty evidence of PW 5, Shri Dey has, however, brought to our notice the evidence given by PW 3 Dr. Kali Kusum Chakravarty who had attended Rajkumar after he had been brought to his house and who stated that on enquiry being made by him from Nilakanta it was stated by the latter that two persons had injured Rajkumar and had fled away. On such a statement being made the prosecution sought permission of the Court to declare PW 3 hostile and the prosecution thereafter confronted him with his statement made before the Investigating Officer when he had stated that while he was examining Rajkumar the people present there had talked that accused Kartick, Bijan, Kumud and Ram Karan had assaulted Rajkumar. 13. In so far as the probative value of the evidence of PW 3 is concerned, Shri Dey refers to Bhagvvan Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 and Sat Paul \s. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 , and contends that even a hostile may be believed. No doubt that is so, but as stated in Sat Paul, the evidence of a hostile witness may be totally discarded if in the light of other evidence on record the testimony of the hostile witness stands wholly discredited. In the present case, in view of what has been stated by PWs 6 and 7 we would regard the statement of PW 3 that PW 5 had told him that "two persons had injured Rajkumar" (meaning two unknown/ unrecognised persons had assaulted Rajkumar) as not at all believable. 14. The above being the state of evidence, we would think that the testimony of PW 5 merits our acceptance. The evidence of this witness is, however, not the sole deposition to find the accused persons guilty inasmuch as he has been duly supported in this regard by PWs 6 Surath and PW 7 Bipin as they have stated that on enquiry being made Nilakanta had told them that accused Kartick and Ram Karan had grabbed Rajkumar whereas Bijan and Kumud had assaulted him with spear and axe. PW 6 being the President of the Labour Panchayat was rightly contacted by Bipin, who in his turn was rightly reported about the matter as he was Secretary of the Panchayat and was living nearby ; son of the deceased also addressed Bipin as uncle. The evidence of PWs 6 and 7, who are totally disinterested persons and who were President and Secretary of the Panchayat, has lend due credence to the testimony of PW 5. The naming of all the accused parsons in the ejahar, filed at Silchar thana (a distance of about 30 KM from the village in question) within about 7 hours of the occurrence is another factor to assure our mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 15. The only other submission of 3hri Dey of which we can take note of that though the Investigating Officer had examined certain Binode and Samaru, they were not examined as witnesses in the case. In this connection, we may point out that an adverse infer­ence relating to non-examination of certain persons can be drawn only when an eye witness is withheld. Otherwise it is for the pro­secution to decide who should be examined in a cese. In this connection, we may refer to Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 , in which it was pointed out that it is not law that omission to examine any and every witness even minor points would lead to the rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution case. It may be pointed out that as at the relevant time only P.W, 5 was in company of the deceased, Binode and Samaru could not have been eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 16. In view of all that has been stated above, we are satisfied that the deceased had met his end at the hands of the accused-appellants. Important question is whether there was meeting of mind to rope in all the four with the crime by pressing into service section 34 of the Penal Code and whether the offence committed by the accused-appellants attracted the mischief of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Let us first examine the question whether the accused-appellants had acted in concert in causing the death of Rajkumar. 17. Let us first examine the question whether the accused-appellants had acted in concert in causing the death of Rajkumar. The evidence of PW 5 is that he had seen accused Kartick and Ram Karan in front of the house of Kartick Mai. The only overt act attributed to these two accused is that he had seen them felling Rajkumar to the ground. This is also what PW 5 had reported to PWs 6 and 7. It is after this act of the two accused that PW 5 saw accused Bijan with a spear in his hand and accused Kumud with an axe. The further evidence of PW 5 is that Bijan and Kumud attacked Rajkumar with instruments they had in their hands. From the evidence of PW 5 which we have just noted, it is not clear to us whether the four persons had acted in furthe­rance of common intention. As we are concerned with guilt of the . accused persons under section 302 whose minimum punishment is R.I, for life, we would hesitate to see Kartick and Ram Karan behind the iron bars for life. The evidence of PW 5, which has otherwise inspired confidence in our mind, the same falls short of satisfying us beyond reasonable doubt that Kartick and Ram Karan had fell down Rajkumar following a prior meeting of mind among the four accused persons. In this connection, we may state that from the evidence of PW 5 we do not know if these two accused had remained with the other two and had left the scene only on seeing the complainant party coming towards the place of occurrence. We may also state that PW 5 did not depose that when he saw Kartick and Ram Karan waiting in front of the farmer's house, he had also seen the two other accused. We are, therefore, prepared to give benefit of doubt to Kartick and Ram Karan. As no other offence has been alleged or proved against them, we order for their acquittal, 18. In so far as Bijan and Kumud are concerned, we entertain no doubt regarding their having acted in furtherance of common Intention to cause the death of Rajkumar. The question relating to these two accused persons is that whether the act committed by them attracted the mischief of section 302 of the Penal Code. In so far as Bijan and Kumud are concerned, we entertain no doubt regarding their having acted in furtherance of common Intention to cause the death of Rajkumar. The question relating to these two accused persons is that whether the act committed by them attracted the mischief of section 302 of the Penal Code. As to this, we entertain no doubt inasmuch as the instruments used by them, namely, axe and spear itself indicate their common intention to cause death of Rajkumar. A reference to the evidence of autopsy surgeon would show that he had found as many as 13 external injuries on the person of the deceased - of whom 11 were incised wou­nds and two penetrating wounds. PW. 1 deposed that the incised wounds could have been caused by an axe. As to the penetrating wounds, the same could have as well been caused by a spear. This being the position, we have no doubt in our mind that the offence committed by Bijan and Kumud did attract the mischief of section 302 of the Penal Code. We would, therefore, uphold their conviction under this section and so too the sentence awarded for it which being the life imprisonment is the minimum contemplated by section 302 of the Penal Code. 19. In the result appellants Kartick and Ram Karan are acquitted and the appeal qua them is allowed. The same is, however dismissed so far as Bijan and Kumud are concerned. They are on bail ; their bail bonds are cancelled to serve out the sentence. S. N. Phukan, J. — I agree.