Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–All the three appellants Salim @ Chammu, Tejmal and Ram Prasad were arraigned before the sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No.178/94 for having committed murder of Mohan Lal. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- in default to further suffer one week rigorous imprisonment. (2). Brief resume of the prosecution case is that Smt. Sumitra, informant (PW.8), is the legally wedded wife of Mohan Lal (deceased). On the day of alleged occurrence she was working as ANM at Jaykaylon Hospital, Kota. The appellant Tejmal had taken the contract of cycle stand in the aforesaid Hospital. In the night of March 5,1994 when Smt. Sumitra was on duty in her ward Ram Prasad walked in the ward to enquire into as to who was on duty. Answering to the enquiry Smt. Sumitra discerned that she was on duty. She also stated that she was the wife of Mohanlalji. At that time Ram Prasad left only to return around 10 p.m. on the same night with 3-4 persons and exhorted threats to Smt. Sumitra. Then on March 7, 1994 in the evening around 8 p.m. when Mohar Lal had gone to drop Smt. Sumitra to the Hospital for night duty he was surrounded by 8-10 persons who were armed with Sword, Iron Rod, Hockey and Sticks and was belaboured by them. The impugned assault took place near the counter in the Hall of Jaykaylon Hospital. Mohan Lal was seriously injured and was profusely bleeding. He was immediately removed to MBS Hospital by Smt. Sumitra. He passed away in the Hospital immediately after administration of First-aid. The police also reached in MBS Hospital in a short while. Smt. Sumitra handed over written report (Ex.P.8) of the alleged incident to the police in the MBS Hospital, On the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P.8.A was drawn. (3). The investigation was started off by Surendra Kumar Dixit, SHO Police Station Nayapura (PW.6). Site plan was drawn on the same night at the instance of Smt. Sumitra, which is Ex.P.9. Blood was collected from the spot, which was a Hockey was also seized from the site vide Ex.P.10. Inquest report was drawn on the next day i.e. on March 8, 1994 vide Ex.P.5, Clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P.11. Site plan was drawn on the same night at the instance of Smt. Sumitra, which is Ex.P.9. Blood was collected from the spot, which was a Hockey was also seized from the site vide Ex.P.10. Inquest report was drawn on the next day i.e. on March 8, 1994 vide Ex.P.5, Clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P.11. Autopsy on the dead body of Mohan Lal was conducted by Dr. R.D. Verma (PW,9). The appellant Ram Prasad, Tejmal and Salim were arrested on March 17, 1994 vide arrest memos Ex.P.17, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.16 respectively. On the basis of disclosure statement of appellant Ram Prasad Ex.P.19 iron rod was seized vide Ex. P.6. In pursuance to the information of appellant Tejmal Ex.P.21 one sword was recovered and seized vide Ex.P.22. Similarly appellant Salim divulged Information about throwing his Hockey at the place of occurrence vide Ex.P.24 which was earlier seized from the site vide Ex.P.10. Dead-body of Mohanlal was handed over to his kith and kins vide Ex.P.7. The weapons recovered as above were blood stained and the same were sent for chemical examination to FSL. On conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. (4). In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Kota. Charges under section 302 read with section 34 IPC or in the alternative section 302 read with section 149 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charge@ and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded innocence. Two witnesses were examined in defence. The learned Sessions Judge also examined Ramani K.P.(CW.1) as a court witness. On hearing final submissions the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove. (5). The independent eye witnesses viz. Rajendra (PW.1), Ram Narain (PW.2), Vishal (PW.3) and Prabhu Singh (PW.7) examined by the prosecution, did not support its case and the Prosecution case hinges on the sole testimony of Smt. Sumitra (PW.8), wife of the deceased Mohan Lal. Shri S.P. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate vehemently contended that the evidence of Smt. Sumitra (PW.8) is highly interested, inimical and actively partisan in character. While deposing in the trial court she has indulged in numerous material improvements upon her earlier statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Otherwise also her testimony suffers of material contradictions at every juncture. Shri S.P. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate vehemently contended that the evidence of Smt. Sumitra (PW.8) is highly interested, inimical and actively partisan in character. While deposing in the trial court she has indulged in numerous material improvements upon her earlier statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Otherwise also her testimony suffers of material contradictions at every juncture. Her testimony can by no stretch of imagination be placed in the category of ``wholly reliable evidence. She is not a witness of sterling worth. It does not stand to reason that Smt. Sumitra could so flawlessly see as to who had inflicted which injury and more so with which weapon as it is very difficult nay impossible to see and know the specific role of every accused parson when 8-10 persons are belabouring a solitary victim. Learned Senior Counsel further canvassed that the learned trial court too accepted the investigation to be tainted and when integrity of the Investigation Agency is dubious, then no reliance can be placed on the material dished out by the Investigating Agency. As the prosecution completely failed to show, much less to prove that the common intention of the accused was to kill the deceased they could not have been convicted. The learned trial court has wrongly discarded the testimony of defence witnesses. (6). Per contra Mr. Rajendra Yadav, learned PP for the State submitted that Smt. Sumitra is a truthful and natural witness and her version has to be accepted. Minor contradictions in her statement is no ground to reject the entire testimony. Supporting the impugned judgment of the trial court, learned P.P. urged that the accused were rightly convicted under section 302/34 IPC as they shared common intention to kill Mohan Lal. (7). Before we analyse the prosecution evidence it will be useful to consider as to whether the evidence of a single witness alone is sufficient to convict the accused. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. This general rule enshrines the well recognised maxim that ``Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. This general rule enshrines the well recognised maxim that ``Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The Apex Court in V. Thevar vs. State of Madras (1) indicated that it is a sound and well established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the guilty and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories namely (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It was indicated by their Lordships of the Apex Court that in the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. it is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. (8). Informing ourselves of these important principles, we proceed to analyse the evidence of the prosecution. (9). According to the post mortem report Ex. P.25 deceased Mohan Lal sustained as many as 7 injuries thus : 1. Incised wound 5x 10 cm. X crenial cavity transverse on Rt. side forehead, near hairline with soft blood clots and brain matter coming out through it. 2. Lacerated wound 7 x 1.5 cm. x bone deep Rt. parietal region, vertical near mid line with soft clotted blood. 3. Bruise 7 x 2. cm. on the top of Lt. shoulder reddish transverse. 4. Incised wound 8x 2.5 cm. muscle deep on the dorsum of Lt. hand over 4th & 5th meta carpel region vertical with soft clotted blood. 5. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep with extensive surface of Rt. arm lower 1/3 vertical. 6. Two bruises reddish 12 x 2 CM. transverse on the lower part of Rt. side back .of chest. 7. Bruise 10x 2 cm. reddish transverse on the middle of post surface of Rt. side abdomen. 5. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep with extensive surface of Rt. arm lower 1/3 vertical. 6. Two bruises reddish 12 x 2 CM. transverse on the lower part of Rt. side back .of chest. 7. Bruise 10x 2 cm. reddish transverse on the middle of post surface of Rt. side abdomen. The cause of death was coma brought about as the result of ante mortem injuries to skull and brain sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. (10). Dr. R.D.Verma (PW.9) conducted the autopsy on the body of Mohan Lal. In his deposition Dr. R.D. Verma stated that all the injuries sustained by the deceased were antimortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his cross examination he categorically stated that even if the deceased was instantly operated and given blood then also he could not have been survived. (11). Rajendra Singh (PW.1) deposed that he was the partner of appellant Tejmal in the contract of cycle stand of Jaykaylon Hospital. On March 5, 1994 a fair coloured boy came to appellants Ram Prasad and Tejmal and made request to arrange for a nurse to attend his relative admitted in the Hospital. In order to help the boy, appellants Ram Prasad, Tejmal and Salim alongwith Rajendra Singh went inside the Hospital where they found ANM Smt. Sumitra. On being asked by Ram Prasad to attend the patient, she became furious and shouted that they did not know to whom they were talking. Seeing her behaviour all of them came back to the Cycle stand. Thereafter on March 6, 1994 Mohan and Smt. Sumitra came to the cycle stand to identify the persons misbehaved with her but did not find anyone. Again on March 7, 1994 around 8.15 p.m. when Mohan came to Hospital on his Motor Cycle he was asked by Ram Narain not to keep his Motor Cycle any where except the cycle stand. On being provoked by this behaviour of Ram Narain, Mohan started abusing and shouted as to how a small ser- vant of cycle stand dared to misbehave with him. In the meanwhile 10-12 persons came rushing and assaulted Mohan. Rajendra Singh (PW.1) was declared hostile by the prosecution. Ram Narain (PW.2),Vishal (PW.3) and Prabhu Singh (PW.7) also did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. In the meanwhile 10-12 persons came rushing and assaulted Mohan. Rajendra Singh (PW.1) was declared hostile by the prosecution. Ram Narain (PW.2),Vishal (PW.3) and Prabhu Singh (PW.7) also did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. Now comes the testimony of Smt. Sumitra (PW.8). In her examination in chief she deposed that on March 7, 1994 around 8 p.m. in the evening she came to Jaykaylon Hospital along with her husband on motor cycle. She got down near the Entry Gate of the Hospital. As soon as she entered inside the Hospital she heard voice of Ram Prasad who was armed with Sariya. Ram Prasad was shouting at Mohan ``I just tell you. At the same time Ram Prasad, Tejmal, Chhammu, Moti and 8-10 other persons surrounded Mohan. Tejmal was having Sword while Chhamu was armed with hockey. Moti and other persons were having lathies in their hands. On being persuaded by her husband she went inside and her husband Mohan also followed her. The assailants also came inside the Hall and started beating Mohan. Chhammu caught hold of Mohan, Tejmal inflicted Sword blow on his left hand and another sword blow on his head. Her husband fell down. Thereafter Ram Prasad inflicted 2-3 sariya blows on his head and Chhammu gave Hockey blow while other persons inflicted winding her husband dead, they went outside the Hospital. Thereafter she took her husband to MBS Hospital and admitted him in the Surgical Ward where after some time he was declared dead. In regard to the incident occurred on March 5, 1994 at 8.30 p.m., she stated that when she was in the P.N. Ward, Ram Prasad in a drunken state came to her and asked her as to who was on duty. When she informed him that she was on duty and asked him did he not know her, he went back. Thereafter around 10 p.m. Ram Prasad along with 4-5 persons again came to labour room and threatening her with dire consequences. He also threatened to kill Mohan. Smt. Sumitra was subjected to very `lengthy cross-examination. In the cross- examination she deposed that whenever she came on night duty she used to put her signatures in attendance register in the morning of the next day when her duty was over. She never put her signatures on the attendance register at the time of entering on duty. Smt. Sumitra was subjected to very `lengthy cross-examination. In the cross- examination she deposed that whenever she came on night duty she used to put her signatures in attendance register in the morning of the next day when her duty was over. She never put her signatures on the attendance register at the time of entering on duty. On March 7, 1994 she was on night duty and because of murder of her husband she could not out her signatures in the attendance register in the morning of March 8, 1994. (12). In order to test the veracity of the testimony of Smt. Sumitra, the learned trial Court summoned Smt. Ramni K.P. (CW.1) as a Court witness along with the attendance register of Sumitra. Ramni K.P. (CW.1) in her deposition stated that Sumitra was on night duty since March 4, 1994 to March 10, 1994. Her night duty would begin from 8 p.m. and continued till 8 am. next day. As per Hospital procedure name of Sumitra was entered in the Attendance Register Ex. C/1. Sumitra put her signatures on the portion marked A to B and her name and the place of duty was shown in the portion C to D. On March 7, 1994 Sumitra put her initials on portion A to B but on March 8, 1994 because of murder of her husband, she could not make initials as in the duty register the persons on duty would put their initials in the morning on the next day, after completion of their duty. (13). Mr. S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Advocate made an attempt to establish that Sumitra was not present when the occurrence took place and certain unknown persons committed the murder of Mohan Lal. According to Mr. Bajwa, the testimony of Smt. Sumitra is full of discrepancies and it should be discarded outrightly. (14). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Appabhai vs. State of Gujrat (2) had occasion to consider the aspect of discrepancies in the statement of a witness. It was indicated thus- ``The Court whole appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance, The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance, The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses now a days go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy. (15). Dealing with the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus the Apex Court in Sohrab vs. State of M.P. (3) observed thus: ``This court has held that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered. (16). From the cautious scrutiny of the material on record, the fact situation that emerges may be deduced thus: (i) In written Report Ex. P.8 which was handed over by Smt. Sumitra at MBS Hospital Kota to Ibrahim Khan (PW.14) on March 7, 1994 at 8.30 p.m. there is an overwriting at place shown from S to T. (ii) The FIR (Ex.P.8 A) was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate on March 8, 1994 at 11.15 a.m. Last page of the FIR, on which endorsement was made by the police, is missing though written report Ex. P,8 is completely available on record. (iii) Ibrahim Khan ASI (PW.14) stated that report Ex. P,8 is completely available on record. (iii) Ibrahim Khan ASI (PW.14) stated that report Ex. P.8 was given to him at 8.30 p.m. and the over writing at place S to T is not in his hand writing. (iv) The incident occurred in the main Hall of the JayKaylon Hospital where Smt. Sumitra was posted as ANM. (v) From the prosecution witness Rajendra Singh PW.1 this fact is established that Ram Prasad, Tejmal and Saleem @ Chhammu on March 5, 1994 had a wordy altercations with Smt. Sumitra and on March 6, 1994 Sumitra and Mohan Lal came to the Cycle Stand in search of persons who misbehaved with Smt.Sumitra. Rajendra Singh also stated that not only on the day of the incident did Mohan Lal come to the Hospital but he used to come regularly. (vi) Site plan (Ex.P.9) was drawn on the same night of the incident at the instance of Smt. Sumitra. (vii) Appellant Ram Prasad admitted in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he alone went on March 5, 1994 to Sumitra to request her to properly attend the wife of Salim, but finding her furious he came back. (viii) Defence witness Gyarsi Lal (DW.1), who was Chowkidar in the Hospital on the day of the incident, deposed that after attending the Wards around 8.00 p.m. when he came to the counter he found an injured person. After 5-10 minutes Sumitra came from the outside and took the injured person in an autorickshaw. (ix) Deepak (DW.2) stated that one woman got his autorickshaw stopped at the turn of Gavadi and asked to proceed to Hospital. She was weeping. She got down at Jaykaylon Hospital and entered inside. After sometime she along with 5-6 persons came with an injured. The woman took the injured to the MBS Hospital. (17). Now let us sum up the whole case in the light of the evidence we have found to be worth. As already stated it is established from the record that Mohan (deceased) the husband of Sumitra used to come on Motor Cycle along with Sumitra to drop her regularly on the duty at the Hospital. On March 5, 1994 as disclosed by Rajendra Singh (PW.1) all the three appellants had wordy altercations with Sumitra. As already stated it is established from the record that Mohan (deceased) the husband of Sumitra used to come on Motor Cycle along with Sumitra to drop her regularly on the duty at the Hospital. On March 5, 1994 as disclosed by Rajendra Singh (PW.1) all the three appellants had wordy altercations with Sumitra. Appellant Ram Prasad admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on March 5, 1994 he went to Sumitra to request her to properly attend the wife of Salim, but finding her angry he came back. Rajendra Singh (PW.1) also stated that on March 6, 1994 Mohar Lal (deceased) came to the Cycle Stand along with Sumitra in search of the persons who misbehaved with her on March 5. From the statement of Chowkidar Gyarsilal (DW.1) it is established that it was Sumitra who shifted the injured from JayKaylon Hospital in an autorickshaw. Even autorickshaw driver Deepak (DW.2) deposed that Sumitra took the injured to the MBS Hospital in his autorickshaw. We see no reason to disbelieve the statement of Smt. Sumitra when we Judge her version from the point of trustworthiness. There is an element of truth in her testimony when she says that she used to put her initials on the duty register in the morning of the next day when her duty was over. Her statement was corroborated by Ramni K.P.(CW.1) who was summoned by the trial Court as a Court witness. As occurrence had taken place around 8 p.m. on March 7, 1994 she could not put her initials on the duty register. We find the testimony of Smt. Sumitra quite natural and truthful. She has described the incident in a clear and graphic manner. (18). The argument that FIR was anti-timed also does not appeal to us. Even if we accept that there is an overwriting in mentioning the time, it is hardly of any consequence. Whether it was submitted at 8.50 p.m. or 9.30 p.m. it does not have any effect on the occurrence and we cannot assume that false case was concocted against the appellants. (19). The learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence with minute details and found the testimony of Sumitra (PW.8) trustworthy. We are also of the view that the testimony of Sumitra (PW.8) can be placed in the category of `wholly reliable witness. (19). The learned trial Court has discussed the entire evidence with minute details and found the testimony of Sumitra (PW.8) trustworthy. We are also of the view that the testimony of Sumitra (PW.8) can be placed in the category of `wholly reliable witness. She is trustworthy and natural and on the basis of minor contradictions in her statement, her entire testimony cannot be discarded. In our considered opinion her testimony inspires confidence as the incident had taken place immediately after her husband Mohan Lal dropped her from the Motor Cycle at the entry gate of the Hospital. We are not impressed by this submission that Sumitra is not the eye-witness. She has implicated all the three appellants and her testimony could not be shattered in the cross-examination. We have weighed her evidence and we find it sufficient to convict the appellants as it is found to be above suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. The common intention of the appellants to kill Mohan Lal is established from the material on record. The formidable weapons used by the appellants used in the beating, the savage manner of its execution, the helpless state of the unarmed victim all, viewed against the background of previous animosity irresistably lead to the conclusion that the injuries caused by the appellants to the deceased were intentionally inflicted and the appellants were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. (20). For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed and conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC stands confirmed. All the appellants are in jail, they be retained in the custody to serve out the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court.