JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This is an appeal by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir. 2. The appellant passed trial under Section 302, Indian Penal Code before the trial Court for causing the death of one Monmohan Bachha. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found that the offence under Section 304, Part- II, I.P.C. has been made out, and as such the appellant was convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for five years. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Monmohan was a retained labourer of one Nirasha, the daughter of Ananda Mohan Mati (P.W.3). Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) was also a labourer working under the said Nirasha. On the day of incident, both the Nirasha and the informant Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) were working as labourer in the Bari of Nirasha and the) were engaged in transplanting chilli. At that time, the accused Abhiram Bachha arrived there and enquired from the deceased Manamohan Bachha as to why his children had committed theft Sir plants from his Atta land and demanded compensation from him. When the deceased denied any knowledge about it and did not oblige him to pay any compensation therefore, a quarrel ensued between the parties. Accused Abhiram Bachha picked up a Pitna (wooden hammer) meant to level and and gave two blows, one on the back and the other on the head of the deceased. As a result of the said blows, the deceased fell down on the ground unconscious. Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) who was in the bari rushed towards the spot and requested the accused not to make further assault. He raised hue and cry and on hearing sounds, Ranu Bachha (P.W.2) and other villagers arrived at the spot. The deceased was taken by the villagers including the informant Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) to the Police Station. There Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) the informant reported the incident to the officer on duty at Bangumunda Police Station which is about 7 K.Ms. away from the village. The injured Monmohan Bachha was sent to Bangumunda P.H.C., for medical examination on the same day. Subsequently, he was removed to Kantabanjhi hospital where he was admitted as an indoor patient on 17.10.1984. away from the village. The injured Monmohan Bachha was sent to Bangumunda P.H.C., for medical examination on the same day. Subsequently, he was removed to Kantabanjhi hospital where he was admitted as an indoor patient on 17.10.1984. The injured Monmohan Bachha died at the said hospital on 22.10.1984 at 5 A.M. On the basis of statement made by the informant Rabi Chandra Bachha, F.I.R. was drawn-up and investigation started. After the receipt of intimation about the death of the deceased Monmohan inquest over the dead body was held. Subsequently, the Medical Officer, Kantabanjhi P.H.C. conducted the post-mortem examination on 22.10.1984 at 4.40 P.M. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and that is how the appellant faced trial before the trial Court and was eventually convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years. 4. The defence was a plea of denial. However, the learned Sessions Judge relied upon the evidence of informant Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) and the son of the deceased P.W.4 Chum Bachha, to back the conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Ghum Bachha (P.W.4) being aged about 4/5 years at the time of the incident could not have been relied upon by the trial Court. He contends that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P.W.1). He argues that the informant is a close relation of the deceased and he is inimically disposed towards the present appellant on the ground that both Civil and Criminal proceedings are pending between the parties. He also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions with regard to the seizure of Pitna (wooden hammer) said to be the weapon of offence. He argues that no independent witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence has been examined, thereby giving credence to the case of the prosecution. He has also argued that the owner of the bari land where the offence is alleged to have been committed has not been examined. No other villager has also been called for to depose about the incident. The Doctor who had allegedly treated the deceased first in point of time, has also not been examined. He goes on to argue that these circumstances would go to show how the prosecution case is unreliable. 5. No other villager has also been called for to depose about the incident. The Doctor who had allegedly treated the deceased first in point of time, has also not been examined. He goes on to argue that these circumstances would go to show how the prosecution case is unreliable. 5. The learned counsel for the State, however, supports the judgment and submits that the discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant being minor in nature should be ignored and conviction can be founded only on the evidence of the informant (P.W.1), if it is found to be worthy of credence. He submits that there is no law that conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. He submits also that evidence should be weighed and not counted. 6. According to the prosecution, Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) and the deceased Monmohan Bachha were retained labourers of one Nirasha, a widow and the daughter of Ananda Mohan Hati (P.W.3). They were working in her bari on the date and time of the incident. Ananda Mohan Hati (P.W.3) is the father of Nirasha. He states that the deceased Monmohan Bachha and Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) were the labourers of his daughter Nirasha. He claims that he was in the residence of his daughter on the date of occurrence. According to him the incident took place on 11.10.1984 at about 2 P.M. He claims that he had accompanied Rabi to the police-station on that day to report the incident. He says that the F.I.R. was recorded by the Police Babu where in he subscribed. During cross-examination, it has been elicited from him that the F.I.R. was not written on that day but it was subscribed by him on the next day. It has been elicited from him that Thana Babu recorded the occurrence in the diary. But he has not recorded the F.I.R. when the incident was reported to him by Rabi. Rabi Chandra Bachha is P.W.1 who is the informant. The F.I.R. indicates that the matter was reported to Police-Station on 11.10.1984 and the F.I.R. was drawn-up. Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) gives us the details of incident which occurred on the day of incident. It is in his evidence that he had been working in the land of Nirasha along with deceased as a labourer and was transplanting Mircha Plants. The F.I.R. indicates that the matter was reported to Police-Station on 11.10.1984 and the F.I.R. was drawn-up. Rabi Chandra Bachha (P.W.1) gives us the details of incident which occurred on the day of incident. It is in his evidence that he had been working in the land of Nirasha along with deceased as a labourer and was transplanting Mircha Plants. He states that while they were engaged in transplanting work, the accused arrived and enquired from the deceased as to why his children had theft his Bir plants and asked for compensation therefore. The deceased having not agreed to pay compensation and having denied about it, the accused gave a blow with Pitna on the head of the deceased and gave another stroke on his back. He says that on receiving the blows, the deceased fell down unconscious. He tried to give water to him. The accused fled leaving the Pitna at the spot. He claims that Police babu visited the spot and he showed him the Pitna and Police Babu seized the same. He states further that on hearing the shouts the villagers arrived and he narrated the incident to them. He says that on the day of incident, he reported the matter to the Police-Station. The Police Babu recorded his information and the contents thereof were read over and explained to him wherein he put his L.T.I. He claims that Chum Bachha (P.W.4) the son of the deceased was also present when the accused assaulted the deceased. It is submitted that this informant P.W.1 is a close relation of the deceased and as such, it would not be proper to place any reliance upon his testimony. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that this informant is inimically disposed towards the accused in as much as civil and criminal cases are pending between the parties. During trial, it has been sought to be proved from the evidence of P.W.1 that a civil suit was brought by the father of the informant (P.W.l) against the father of the accused over some lands. P.W.1 disclaims any knowledge about the fact. But there is nothing on record to indicate that in fact any such civil suit is pending between the father of the deceased and the father of the informant. Be that as it may, it is noticed that the informant P.W.1 had given a graphic description of the incident. P.W.1 disclaims any knowledge about the fact. But there is nothing on record to indicate that in fact any such civil suit is pending between the father of the deceased and the father of the informant. Be that as it may, it is noticed that the informant P.W.1 had given a graphic description of the incident. He has been working along with the deceased Nirasha on the day of incident. He speaks of assault on the deceased by the accused by means of Pitna (wooden hammer) and as a result of the assault, the deceased fell down unconscious. The deceased was taken to the Police-Station first in an unconscious state and later the deceased was removed to Bongomunda P.H.C. in an unconscious state. Still later he was shifted to Kantabanjhi hospital for treatment. There the deceased was under treatment for several days where he died on 22.10.1984. P.W.5 is the Doctor attached to the Kantabanjhi hospital. He conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Monmohan Bachha on the same day at about 4.40 P.M. and found as follows : (1) One scar mark (recently healed). It was of size ?"" x ?"" over middle of the vault of the skull. (2) Small multiple x superficial scar marks over the back of the body. On dissection I found as follows:- (1) Haematoma of 2"" x 2"" under the scalp on right parietal region. (2) Simple fissure fracture of right parietal and upper portion of right temporal bone. The fracture starts from mid-line and extends towards and below over right parietal and upper part of right temporal bones. The length of the fracture line was 5/2"". (3) Haematoma brown in colour of 2"" x 3"" under the skull bone and over the duramater on right parietal area. (4) The meninges and brain congested on the right side. (5) Bleeding inside the right cerebral hemisphere right parietal and temporal lobe. The blood was brown in colour and it was in liquid stage. The injuries are ante mortem and homicidal in nature. The cause of death was the result of the head injury with fracture of the skull and concotion of the brain. The time of death was within 12 hours at the time of postmortem examination. The fracture injury corresponds to the external injury No.1. The external injury No. 1 is corresponding to the internal fracture. The cause of death was the result of the head injury with fracture of the skull and concotion of the brain. The time of death was within 12 hours at the time of postmortem examination. The fracture injury corresponds to the external injury No.1. The external injury No. 1 is corresponding to the internal fracture. The external injury No.1. corresponding to the head injury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. This is the P.N. report marked Ext. 2"." It appears from his evidence that the Investigating Officer sent the weapon of offence, viz., Pitna M.O.I. to him for opinion. He opined that the injury found on the deceased could be caused with the help of this Pitna. According to the doctor, the injuries were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. 7. It appears that the deceased was first sent to Medical Officer, Bongomunda P.H.C. under requisition. The injury report (Ext. 5/1) of the Medical Officer shows that there were two abrasions one on the top of the head and the other on the lower lip. It is of course true that the said Medical Officer, Bangomunda hospital has not been examined but the Medical officer of Kantabanjhi hospital where the deceased was treated as an indoor patient from 17.10.1984 to 22.10.1984, stated that he noticed the injuries as mentioned in Ext. 5/1. That the deceased died as a result of assault on his head and on his back has been clearly established from the medical evidence and no doubt can be entertained about it. 8. Now the question that falls for determination is whether the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Monmohan Bachha. We have scrutinised the evidence of P.W.1. It appears that it was the accused and the accused alone who had given two blows one on the head and another on the back of the deceased and as a result of the assault, the deceased fell and later succumbed to his injuries at the Kantabanjhi hospital in spite of treatment given to him. Even ignoring the evidence of P.W.4, the son of the deceased, who appears to be a child witness, it is noticed that there is enough evidence to hold that the accused is solely responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Even ignoring the evidence of P.W.4, the son of the deceased, who appears to be a child witness, it is noticed that there is enough evidence to hold that the accused is solely responsible for causing the death of the deceased. There is no law that conviction cannot be founded upon the evidence of a single witness if it is found to be clear, cogent dependable and trustworthy. The defence has tried to establish that there was previous quarrel between the parties over some land dispute but that has not been established. It is unlikely that because of a simple land dispute between the parents of the parties, the informant P.W.1 would falsely implicate the accused in this case all of a sudden. It may be that there are some discrepancies in the evidence regarding seizure of M.O.I. the weapon of offence. But the fact remains, it has actually been seized by the Police Officer in course of investigation and it is the categorical statement of P.W.1 that this Pitna was used by the accused to cause injury to the deceased. In view of the fact that P.W.1 is a rustic and totally illiterate the discrepancies may be ignored. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no villager has been examined to establish the allegation against the appellant. It may be remembered that the place of incident was away from the village in a solitary place. No other villager was present there. Therefore, it was not possible for the villagers to notice the incident. It has been elicited from the informant P.W.1 that a Panch was held before the matter was reported to the police-station. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no Panch are examined. But it may be remembered that the evidence of Panch should not have improved this case because they are not the eye-witness to the occurrence. It is the informant alone who was present at the spot when the accused gave the blows by means of Pitna to the deceased. We find that the informant had carried the injured in an unconscious state to P.H.C., wherefrom he was sent to Bongamunda, wherefrom he was shifted to Kantabanjhi hospital where he expired. I have scrutinized and analysed the evidence in detail. On such analysis, I am of clear opinion that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. We find that the informant had carried the injured in an unconscious state to P.H.C., wherefrom he was sent to Bongamunda, wherefrom he was shifted to Kantabanjhi hospital where he expired. I have scrutinized and analysed the evidence in detail. On such analysis, I am of clear opinion that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. I find nothing to disbelieve the sole witness (P.W.1) in this case. It appears that the trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence, it was quite right in convicting the accused under Section 304-Part-II. So I find that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 9. The order of conviction and sentence is upheld. The accused should surrender to his bail bond forthwith to serve the sentence. Final Result : Dismissed