(1) THIS appeal is preferred by the convicted accused by name Sohrabkhan, aged about 26 years as on the date of the occurrence, on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1976 on the file of the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore bench by setting aside the judgment of the trial court acquitting him of the offences punishable under S. 302 and S. 323 IPC and under S. 27 of the Arms Act and further convicting him of the above-said offences and sentencing to life imprisonment under Sec- tion 302 Indian Penal Code and to other various terms of imprisonment for other offences. The matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as follows: The appellant is the son of one Ishaq Khan. The appellant and his father were on inimical terms with the deceased Aziz Khan who was none other than the nephew of Ishaq Khan. There was dispute over the enjoyment of a portion of land between these two parties. (2) ON 20/08/1973 at about 7.30 a.m. the deceased was grazing his cattle in the field whilst his brother Public Witness 3 Latif was cutting grass in the nearby Field. At that point of time, Ishaq Khan armed with a gun, accompanied by his son, the appellant herein armed with a stick came to the scene of occurrence. It is stated that Ishaq Khan handed over his gun to the appellant and instigated him to shoot at Aziz Khan. (3) ON the instigation of his father, the appellant fired a shot causing injuries to Aziz Khan. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted Aziz Khan with a stick and when Public Witness 3 rushed to the scene of occurrence and inter- vened, he too was assaulted by the appellant with a stick. Alter causing injuries to the deceased and Public Witness 3 the appellant and his father made good their escape. Thereafter, the injured Aziz Khan was carried to Badagaon hospital where Public Witness 2 rendered the first-aid and advised the parties to take the injured to Nalkhoda hospital. At the Nalkhoda hospi- tal, the injured was examined by Public Witness 14, a medical officer of that hospi- tal. (4) PUBLIC Witness 3 lodged the FIR, Ex. Thereafter, the injured Aziz Khan was carried to Badagaon hospital where Public Witness 2 rendered the first-aid and advised the parties to take the injured to Nalkhoda hospital. At the Nalkhoda hospi- tal, the injured was examined by Public Witness 14, a medical officer of that hospi- tal. (4) PUBLIC Witness 3 lodged the FIR, Ex. P 4 on the same day at about 11 a.m. at Nalkhoda police station which is situated about 14 kms from the scene of occurrence. As the condition of the injured Aziz Khan became serious, he was advised to be taken to the Civil Hospital, Ujjain. Under the advice of the medical officer, a dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Public Witness 17, Naib Tehsildar under Ex. P 20. However, the injured Aziz Khan succumbed to his injuries on 23/08/1973. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused i.e. the respondent and his father. (5) THE trial court rejected the dying declaration Ex. P 20 for the reasons mentioned in its judgment and on that basis discarded the testimony of Public Witness 3 and finally concluded that the prosecution has not made out the case against the appellant and his father and consequently acquitted them. The State thereafter preferred the appeal before the High court which allowed the appeal as stated above. (6) THE totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is twofold; one, the direct evidence of Public Witness 3 who is an injured witness; and two, the dying declaration Ex P 20 recorded by Public Witness 17 at the hospital. PW 3 though is the brother of the deceased Aziz Khan, his presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be disputed because he too had received an injury on his hand on being beaten by the appellant with a stick. Further, in the present case the relationship does not play an important role because both the parties were closely related to each other. Public Witness 3 has given a full account of what had happened at the scene of occurrence and has testified to the fact that Aziz Khan received a gunshot injury at the hands of the appellant on being instigated by his father Ishaq Khan. (7) IN Ex. Public Witness 3 has given a full account of what had happened at the scene of occurrence and has testified to the fact that Aziz Khan received a gunshot injury at the hands of the appellant on being instigated by his father Ishaq Khan. (7) IN Ex. P 20 the deceased has given a full account of the incident stating that it was the appellant who shot at him at the instance of his fa- ther. The trial court had discarded the dying declaration only on the ground that the deceased had implicated the brother of the appellant as having been present at the time of occurrence. In our view, the mere mentioning of the presence of the brother of the appellant at the scene cannot be said to have whittled down the veracity of the dying declara- lion. The High court in paragraph 8 of its judgment while dealing with Ex. P 20 has observed as follows : "HAVING gone through his (Public Witness 3) testimony, we find that the reasons given by the trial court for discarding it are perverse. We see no valid reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. TURNING to the dying declaration Ex. P 20 recorded on the date of incident by Public Witness 17 Lakhanlal Shah, Naib Tehsildar, Ujjain, we find that it substantially corroborates the testimony of the eye- witness as to the part played by each accused in the crime." (8) THIS court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras has laid down the dictum that the evidence of a single witness if wholly reliable, a con- viction can be safely based on that evidence alone. After going through the evidence of Public Witness 3, we are convinced that his evidence is wholly reli- able and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Ex. P 20 is also a document which can be accepted and acted upon. In the result, we are in full agree- ment with the conclusion arrived at by the High court relying upon the testimony of Public Witness 3 and the dying declaration Ex. P 20. We also on scrutinising the evidence carefully, notwithstanding the reasoning of the High court, unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case against the appellant by leading formidable evi- dence. P 20. We also on scrutinising the evidence carefully, notwithstanding the reasoning of the High court, unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out the case against the appellant by leading formidable evi- dence. (9) IN the result, we confirm the conviction and the sentence recorded by the High court and dismiss the appeal as devoid of any merit.