JUDGMENT D.P. Sood, J.—Appellant Pati Ram was tried, convicted and sentenced to. undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in the event of failure to deposit the fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide the impugned judgment dated 15th May, 1989, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan. . . , 2. The prosecution case in nut-shell as unfolded by the injured PW-4 is that on November 7, J987 at about 10 a. m. he was going to his fields in village Kando and was carrying a plough ; that the moment he reached near Bowri, the appellant armed with a DANGRA emerged from the bushes and started assaulting him with the said weapon Resultantly he suffered eight injuries on his person out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were found to be grievous. His wearing apparels, namely, shirt, pyajama, underwear, banian and sweater were also stained with blood. On alarm raised by him S/Shri Sita Ram, Chandan Singh Mani Ram and Sobha Ram, (PWs 5 to 8) reached the spot, witnessed the occurrence and rescued the injured from the clutches of the appellant. The complainant details that on receiving injuries, he in orders to save himself, jumped from the fields after throwing the plough but the accused chased him and gave another blow by DANGRA. Ultimately, he ran towards the village with where he was medically examined by Dr S. M. Ah (PW-1). 3. On lodging the report at Police Station, Shillai by Sobha Ram : PW a criminal case vide FI.R. Ex. PM for the commission of the offence under section 307 I. P. C., was recorded at police station Renukaji. During investigation the blood stained clothes of injured were taken into a sealed parcel and handed over to PW-1. The injured was referred to the District Civil Hospital Nahan where he remained admitted for about 1-1/2 months. The police also took into possession the plough, Ed stained earth and the blood stained clothes and the appellant was arrested on 20th December, 1986 who on interrogation made a disclosure statement and got the weapon of offence discovered at his behest; while in Police custody vide Memo. Ex PK. The police also took into possession the plough, Ed stained earth and the blood stained clothes and the appellant was arrested on 20th December, 1986 who on interrogation made a disclosure statement and got the weapon of offence discovered at his behest; while in Police custody vide Memo. Ex PK. After completion of the investigation the appellant was accordingly tried for the above said offence. 4. The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. In his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. he raised a defence of denial simpliciter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced 18 witnesses and tendered into evidence relevant documents and the case property The appellant in his defence examined two witnesses. The trial Court on Sal of the entire evidence before it held that the appellant assaulted the injured with the weapon of offence with the intention of killing him and as such guilty of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as indicated above. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the appellant has come up in this appeal. 7. Shri J K Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly submitted that none of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence nor the medical evidence has supported the injured that there are contradictions and discrepancies on material particulars in the sworn testimonies of the above said witnesses which raised a doubt as to the authenticity of the prosecution version and in such a case the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. According to him, there existed no motive on the part of the appellant to assault the injured. He also meticulously Sought to the notice of this Court that the Court below erred in not extending the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 m favour of the appellant particularly when he is not a previous convict and he is the only bread-earner of the family consisting of old widowed mother, two wives and four unmarried daughters. one son and one widowed sister. He also pointed out that there is none to look after the family and the property. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel and I have also carefully gone through the entire record. 9. one son and one widowed sister. He also pointed out that there is none to look after the family and the property. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel and I have also carefully gone through the entire record. 9. The factum of the injured Dharam Singh (PW-4) having sustained injuries on his person and his stay in the hospital for 1-1/2 months for , Skin treatment are not disputed. Further that out of 8 injuries 3 were found to be grievous having been caused with a sharp edged weapon is also not denied. Another circumstance that DANGRA Ex. P-6, i. e, a Lathi 4-1/2with sharp edged blade with 7" allegedly recovered in the instant case is also not in controversy. Another fact that injured was removed to Primary Health Centre, Shillai, by PWs 5 to 8 immediately after the occurrence and thereafter he was referred to District Civil Hospital at Nahan, has also not been disputed. The only question is to be determined by this Court is as to who caused the injuries on the person of the injured ? 10. Dharam Singh (PW-4), the injured, had cut marks on the respective portions corresponding injuries on his person as has been divulged by Dr. S. M. Ali, PW-1. According to PW-1, injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 8 were opined as simple and injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were opined as grievous and their duration being between 2 to 6 hours at the time of the examination of the injured at 12.45 p. m. on the date of occurrence. Thus there is every possibility of the injured (PW-4) having sustained the injuries during the occurrence at about 9.10 a. m. on 7-11-1986 as stated by him. Now what was the origin, genesis and manner in which he sustained injuries, is to be seen. S/Shri Sita Ram, Chandan Singh and Man! Ram (PWs 5 to 7) though have turned hostile by stating that they did not witness the occurrence, yet all of them have admitted that PW-4 Dharam Singh had the injuries on his person when they found him lying unconscious on the path and that Sobha Ram PW-8 had told them that Pati Ram appellant had inflicted those injuries upon his (PW-4) person with DANGRA. They have further admitted that they did see the appellant going towards the fields with DANGRA in question. They have further admitted that they did see the appellant going towards the fields with DANGRA in question. 11. It is well established principle of law that testimony of hostile witness cannot be rejected out-rightly and the Court is competent to consider his statement, if the truth can be taken out from it. However, the Court is to be more cautious while scrutinizing the statement of such witness. Simply because some witnesses turned hostile it does not prevent the Court from finding the accused guilty if there is otherwise acceptable evidence in support of the prosecution Thus the version of such hostile witnesses; to the extent which seems to be true and which supports the prosecution version, can be relied upon by the Court in determining the question whether the accused is or is not guilty. 12. Now Sobha Ram (PW-8) has deposed in clear words that while he was going to collect the fodder from a. different path, he saw the appellant giving beatings to Dharam Singh (PW-4) with a DANGRA in question, near a Bowari. He further states that he found the witnesses aforesaid when he reached the place where PW-4, the injured, was lying unconscious on the village path. Dharam Singh (PW-4) has also categorically foisted the criminal liability upon the appellant. Even one trustworthy witness is sufficient to base the conviction. It is not necessary to multiply the witnesses ; quality is the factor to count than quantity. Where eye-witness for the prosecution is only one, it becomes the duty of the Court to be more cautious and very critically scrutinise his evidence Mere probability of witnessing the occurrence being neighbour of the place of incident is not enough but something more is required to test his veracity in order to mark him as most trustworthy when such a solitary witness omits to state the material facts of the actual incident in his first disclosure before the Investigating Officer, then his evidence becomes doubtful and to be pushed out of the arena of trustworthiness. In the instant case it is not only the injured Dharam Singh (PW-4) who has been cross-examined at length but also PW-8 Sobha Ram who witnessed the occurrence. Both have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record which may falsify their testimonies about the occurrence in question. In the instant case it is not only the injured Dharam Singh (PW-4) who has been cross-examined at length but also PW-8 Sobha Ram who witnessed the occurrence. Both have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record which may falsify their testimonies about the occurrence in question. Their deposition is also supported by the statements of PWs 5 to 7. The learned trial Court was absolutely right in relying upon the statements of all these witnesses with respect to the origin, f genesis and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. 13. The above said conclusion is also corroborated by the disclosure statement Ex. PH made by the appellant and consequent discovery of I DANGRA Ex. P-6 from his cattle shed which was lying underneath the wooden plank to his exclusive knowledge alone. Record reveals that the appellant was in custody of the police on 23-12-1986 On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement on that day and got the DANGRA. discovered. This fact is duly proved by the testimonies of S/Sh. Sukh Ram and Mani Ram, Head Constable, PWs-11 and 14. The use of DANGRA I (Ex. P. 6) in the crime is further supported from the fact that human blood was found on it as per the Serologist Report Ex PT. The learned Court below was also right in believing the said statements. 14. Another point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is r that there are discrepancies in the statements of Dharam Singh (PW-4) and Sobha Ram (PW-8), to the incident that according to the former the village Abadi is towards the east from the place of occurrence whereas latter states it towards the west ; that according to PW-4, injured, no altercation took place between him and the appellant before he started giving beatings to him with DANGRA (Ex. P. 6) while as per the latter, in his statement under section 161, Cr P. C (Ex. PE), altercation did take place. P. 6) while as per the latter, in his statement under section 161, Cr P. C (Ex. PE), altercation did take place. Another piece of contradiction pointed out is that injured states to have fallen unconscious on the path leading to Shillai but latter, i. e., PW-8 states that Dharam Singh PW-4 had fallen in the field adjoining to the path These contradictions have rightly been discarded by the trial Court holding them to be minor contradictions, on the well established principle that; proof of the fact beyond reasonable doubt is not to absolute standard and it requires high decree of probability amounting of proof. In the instant case evidence of these witnesses was recorded after a long period computed from the date of occurrence. A witness cannot be expected to give a parrot like statement before the trial Court after such a long period. Minor contradictions are likely to occur. Thus this point having no force is also rejected. 15. The third point to the effect that the appellant had no intention to kill PW-4 and as such the appellant should not have been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Needless to state that the trial Court has discussed the circumstances emerging from the record correctly Record shows that the appellant on seeing the injured going to his fields with a plough, suddenly appeared from the bashes duly armed with DANGRA (Ex. P. 6) and started giving beatings to him, i e. PW-4. The injured attempted to save himself by jumping into the adjoining field but the appellant still followed him and gave blows with said DANGRA on the person of the injured till he ran for rescue and fell down after covering a distance of one furlong where witnesses saved him. No fault can be found with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 16. As regards the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, the circumstances of the case in hand show that it has rightly not been extended to the appellant. need not discuss the circumstances again which are found in the judgment of the trial Court. 17. In view of the above the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 18. need not discuss the circumstances again which are found in the judgment of the trial Court. 17. In view of the above the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 18. The appellant who is on bail should surrender before the trial Court to serve the sentence and his bail bond and surety bonds are cancelled. Appeal dismissed.