JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2) Kangra at Dharamshala dated July 10, 2000. 2. Karam Chand, appellant herein, (A-l for short), was tried alongwith Vikas Chauhan alias Bantu (A2) and Sudhir alias Shimpu (A3) for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having killed Kuldip alias Kukar on the night intervening March 12 and 13, 1999, at village Jhanjharta in mauza Bandla of Tehsil Palampur in the District of Kangra. A-2 and A-3 were acquitted by the learned trial Judge, whereas, A-1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees 5,000. In case of default in the payment of fine, accused is to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. Dis-satisfied with his conviction, A-l has filed the present appeal. Prosecution case 4. Karam Chand (Al) is first cousin of Des Raj son of one Shri Roshan of village Jhanjharta in Tehsil Palampur. A-2 and A-3 were friends of A-l Ka,ram Chand. Marriage of Des Raj was solemnized with the sister of Suresh Kumar (PW 2) on March 11, 1999 at village Bharrnat. All the three accused participated in the marriage. Marriage party returned back to Jhanjharta, village of bridegroom, on the evening of March 12, 1999. Suresh Kumar (PW 2), brother of bride, accompanied the bride to the house of the bridegroom alongwith deceased Kuldip, Surinder Kumar (PW 1) and some other children as per custom. The marriage party reached the house of bridegroom at about 9.30 p.m. As usual in marriages, members of the marriage party started dancing to the tune played by Band Party which was conducted by Hoshiar Singh (DW 2). Karam Chand (Al), Vikas Chauhan (A2) and Sudhir (A3) also danced amongst others. Food was served at about 10.30 in the night. All of them started dancing again after taking food. The dance continued for about half an hour. Thereafter, Suresh took his companions Surinder Kumar and Kuldip to sleep in a room in the house of bridegroom. Kuldip shared the bed with Surinder Kumar, whereas, Suresh slept on the adjacent cot. Band started playing once again. All of them started dancing again after taking food. The dance continued for about half an hour. Thereafter, Suresh took his companions Surinder Kumar and Kuldip to sleep in a room in the house of bridegroom. Kuldip shared the bed with Surinder Kumar, whereas, Suresh slept on the adjacent cot. Band started playing once again. Kuldip got up arid informed Surinder Kumar that he would go and dance again. Kuldip accordingly came out of the room to dance. The band played thereafter for about 10-15 minutes and then stopped but Kuldip did not return. Surinder Kumar came out to find Kuldip. Kuldip. was not to be found in the compound where the band was earlier being played. However, he noticed all the three accused alongwith Kuldip going towards the gate which was put up for decoration purpose on the road, at a distance of about 20 to 30 steps from the house of the bridegroom. He wondered as to why Kuldip was going alongwith the accused towards village Chandpur. He, therefore, followed them towards the gate. While going towards the gate he heard cries of Kuldip. On hearing cries, he rushed towards the gate. After covering about 20 feet, he saw Kuldip was lying on his back on the road and Karam Chand was sitting by his side hitting Kuldip with a stone on his head. A-2 was giving kick and fist blows to Kuldip. Sudhir was also seen bent upon Kuldip but due to the shadow of Karam Chand which was falling on Sudhir, Surinder Kumar could not see whether he was beating or trying to save Kuldip. Surinder Kumar got frightened and hid himself near the shop of the bridegroom in darkness. In the early hours of the morning, he returned back to the room where Suresh was sleeping. He woke up Suresh and narrated him the entire incident. Suresh advised Surinder Kumar to inform the Pradhan of their Gram Panchayat. Surinder Kumar left for Bharmat, reached there at about 8.00 a.m., and informed Pradhan Jagat Ram (PW 3) about the occurrence. Jagat Ram, in turn, rang up Police. Police informed him that they have already been informed and shall be reaching the village of occurrence. Police advised Jagat Ram to reach there. Jagat Ram alongwith other villagers and Surinder Kumar reached the spot. By that time, Police had also arrived. Statement of Surinder Kumar (Ext. Jagat Ram, in turn, rang up Police. Police informed him that they have already been informed and shall be reaching the village of occurrence. Police advised Jagat Ram to reach there. Jagat Ram alongwith other villagers and Surinder Kumar reached the spot. By that time, Police had also arrived. Statement of Surinder Kumar (Ext. PW1/A) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded which was sent to the Police Station for registration of the formal First Information Report (Ext. PW8/B). The Investigating Officer Inspector Jagan Nath (PW 10) thereafter prepared the inquest report (Ext. PW3/ A and PW3/B), took photographs of the spot in terms of Ext. PW10/ 1 to Ext. PW10/11. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the Hospital at Palampur. Site plan Ext. PW10/B was prepared. He took into possession blood stained clothes Ext. PI to P3 lying near the dead body vide Memo Exhibit PW3/C. The stones were sealed with seal impression "S". The blood stained soil Ext. P4 was also taken into possession from the spot. The same was also sealed. Statements of witnesses Suresh Kumar, Jagat Ram and others under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. 5. Dr. Vinay Mahajan, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Palampur, at the relevant time, conducted the post mortem on the dead body on March 13, 1999. Dr. Mahajan found following ante mortem injuries: (a) A wound covered with clotted blood. On the right side of the scalp over the right temporal parietal region underlying skull bone was fractured. Brain tissues were exposed extending out of the wound. (b) Scalp bone over temporal region was fractured. Large amount of blood had collected underneath. The underline brain tissues were macerated. Membrances were pale and lacerated; (c) Fracture of right maxillary bone and right mandible. 6. In the opinion of Dr. Mahajan, the cause of death was shock secondary to head injury and haemorrhage. 7. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the Doctor confirmed his opinion regarding the cause of death. 8. We have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General. We have also gone through the record and appraised the evidence with the help of learned Counsel. 9. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the Doctor confirmed his opinion regarding the cause of death. 8. We have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General. We have also gone through the record and appraised the evidence with the help of learned Counsel. 9. The fact that Kuldip deceased participated in the wedding of the sister of Suresh Kumar and was present in the house of bridegroom Des Raj on the intervening night of March 12/13, 1999, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that amongst others, deceased Kuldip, all the three accused, including A-l Karam Chand, Surinder Kumar and Suresh Kumar participated in the festivities and danced to the tune played by the Band party. It is the evidence of Surinder Kumar (PW 1) that he knew Kuldip who happened to be his cousin. It is his evidence that he, Suresh Kumar brother of the bride and deceased Kuldip and some other children had accompanied the bride alongwith the Barat to the house of the bridegroom. It is his further evidence that accused Karam Chand (Al) alongwith Vikas Chauhan (A2) and Sudhir (A3) came to the house of bridegroom at about 9.30 p.m. All of them participated in the dance. Dinner was served at 10.30 p.m. and thereafter, all of them danced again. It is his evidence that Suresh Kumar (PW 1), at about 10.30 p.m., took him and Kuldip to a room in the house of bridegroom to sleep. It is his further evidence that he shared bed with Kuldip, whereas, Suresh Kumar slept on the adjacent bed. After some time, band started playing again and Kuldip "got up and informed Surinder that he would go and dance. Kuldip left the room. Band stopped playing after 10-15 minutes but Kuldip did not return back. Surinder Kumar became concerned and came out of the room to find Kuldip. Kuldip was not to be found in the compound where the band was earlier being played. Surinder Kumar, however, noticed that Kuldip alongwith all the three accused A-l to A-3, was going towards the gate put up for decoration on the road about 20 to 30 steps from the house of the bridegroom. According to Surinder Kumar, he saw all the three accused and Kuldip going towards Chandpur side. Surinder Kumar, however, noticed that Kuldip alongwith all the three accused A-l to A-3, was going towards the gate put up for decoration on the road about 20 to 30 steps from the house of the bridegroom. According to Surinder Kumar, he saw all the three accused and Kuldip going towards Chandpur side. The gate as well as the passage was well lit with the electric tubes which. were installed for the marriage by the bridegroom side. He was surprised seeing Kuldip going with the accused towards that direction. Surinder Kumar climbed the stairs and when reached near the gate, he heard shrieks of Kuldip. On hearing cries, he rushed towards them. After covering about 20 feet, he saw Kuldip lying on his back on the road and Karam Chand sitting by his side and hitting Kuldip with stone. Other accused (A2) was giving kick and fist blows to Kuldip, whereas, Sudhir was bent upon Kuldip but he could not see whether he was beating or trying to save Kuldip as Sudhir was in darkness due to shadow of Karam Chand falling on Sudhir. On seeing this incident, Surinder Kumar got frightened and returned back to hide himself in the darkness near the shop of the bridegroom. Surinder did not want the accused to notice him. Surinder remained at that place for more than two hours. On the breaking of the dawn, he returned back to the room, woke Suresh Kumar and narrated to him the occurrence. Both of them came to the place of occurrence and saw Kuldip lying dead at that place. Suresh Kumar advised him to go and inform the Pradhan of their village regarding this occurrence. It is the evidence of Surinder Kumar that he then left for Bharmat and informed Jagat Ram (PW 3), Vice Pradhan of his village. Jagat Ram in turn, informed the Police and came alongwith other villagers to the place of occurrence. By that time, police had already arrived at that place. 10. Testimony of Surinder Kumar (PW 1), the sole eye witness, is sought to be impeached by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant. Jagat Ram in turn, informed the Police and came alongwith other villagers to the place of occurrence. By that time, police had already arrived at that place. 10. Testimony of Surinder Kumar (PW 1), the sole eye witness, is sought to be impeached by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant. The contention is that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of Surinder Kumar which suffers credibility on the grounds: (a) Conduct of Surinder Kumar, the sole eye witness, immediately after the occurrence, was unnatural; (b) Name of the accused in the inquest report does not find mention though Surinder Kumar was present when inquest report was prepared; (c) The present appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of the evidence which was not found satisfactory in respect of two other co-accused who were acquitted; (d) Accused-appellant had no motive to kill the deceased; (e) It was not possible for Surinder Kumar to have identified the accused-appellant in the absence of adequate light at the place of occurrence. (a) Conduct of Surinder Kumar, the sole eye witness, immediately after the occurrence, was unnatural. 11. Mr. Vats, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently urged that the evidence of Surinder Kumar, the sole eye witness, does not inspire confidence in view of his conduct immediately after the alleged occurrence. The contention is that after seeing the ghastly murder of Kuldip, Surinder Kumar, like any other normal human being, would have returned back to the house to inform Suresh Kumar and other people who were present in the house of the bridegroom, particularly when he at that point of time, could not be sure if Kuldip is alive or dead. Instead, surprisingly, submitted Shri Vats, this witness would have us believe that he went to the nearby shop of the bridegroom and returned back to the house only in the early hours of the morning to inform Suresh Kumar, brother of the bride about the occurrence. This unnatural conduct of Surinder Kumar, according to the learned Counsel, renders his testimony doubtful. 12. We may notice that the fact that deceased Kuldip was in the company of accused Karam Chand and two of his other accused companions, is not disputed in the cross-examination of this witness. This unnatural conduct of Surinder Kumar, according to the learned Counsel, renders his testimony doubtful. 12. We may notice that the fact that deceased Kuldip was in the company of accused Karam Chand and two of his other accused companions, is not disputed in the cross-examination of this witness. Suggestion to the witness was that he came to know about the dead body of Kuldip lying on the road near the gate from the villagers and it is only thereafter that he informed the Pradhan on telephone. The other suggestion put to this witness was that he did not see Karam Chand and other accused beating Kuldip. It is true that this witness admitted that deceased was his first cousin and a good friend but that will not render the ocular evidence of this witness as unreliable. In fact, Surinder Kumar had no reason to falsely implicate the accused appellant nor any such reason is suggested. So far the fact of hiding in the darkness of the shop of the bridegroom and not going to the room where Suresh Kumar was sleeping, is concerned, Surinder Kumar has explained that he got frightened and came back to the gate and concealed himself (sic) near the shop of the bridegroom. According to him, "I had got frightened so much that I had went towards the shop and as there was darkness on that side and I did not want the accused to notice me." The explanation, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be far fetched. The witness categorically explained that he was so much frightened from the accused that he considered hiding in the darkness behind the shop of the bridegroom to escape notice of the accused to be his best bet for safety. 13. It is not unnatural for a person to hide himself, after witnessing a gruesome murder, from the preparator of the crime. It is well known that witnesses to a serious crime do not react uniformally. The horror stricken or frightened witnesses may react differently to a given situation. It is not possible to expect uniform reaction from different persons to the same incident. In any event, the ocular evidence of a witness, is not liable to be rejected merely because such witness reacted or behaved in an unusual manner in the perception of a third person. 14. It is not possible to expect uniform reaction from different persons to the same incident. In any event, the ocular evidence of a witness, is not liable to be rejected merely because such witness reacted or behaved in an unusual manner in the perception of a third person. 14. The Apex Court in Rana Partap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327, observed : "Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and. stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others jun away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way". (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the testimony of Surinder Kumar cannot be discarded simply because he was so frightened from the accused that he hid himself in the darkness behind the shop of the bridegroom instead of going back to the house of bridegroom and informing Suresh Kumar or other relations of bridegroom about the incident moreso when accused-appellant was close relation of the bridegroom and the witness feared for his life: (b) Name of the accused in the Inquest report does not find mention though Surinder Kumar was present when inquest report was prepared. 16. Shri Vats submitted that inquest report does not mention the name of the accused though at the time of preparation of the inquest report, Surinder Kumar, the sole eye witness, was present. The argument is that this omission of the name of the. accused as preparator of the crime, in the inquest report, would show that story involving the accused was invented after deliberations and name of the accused-appellant was introduced in the statement of Surinder Kumar which was recorded much later to the preparation of the inquest report. The argument is that this omission of the name of the. accused as preparator of the crime, in the inquest report, would show that story involving the accused was invented after deliberations and name of the accused-appellant was introduced in the statement of Surinder Kumar which was recorded much later to the preparation of the inquest report. This, according to the learned Counsel, raises serious doubts about the credibility of the testimony of Surinder Kumar and Hi turn about the involvement of the accused in the killing of deceased Kuldip. It was contended that had Surinder Kumar (PW 1) seen the occurrence, as he would have us believe, then the name of the accused and the manner of occurrence would have found mention in the inquest report. This, urged learned Counsel for the accused, shows that accused has falsely been implicated. 17. It is true that there is no mention either of the name of the accused as preparator of the crime or any detail of the occurrence in the inquest report. In our view, it was not necessary to mention the name of the accused or the detail of the occurrence in the inquest report. The inquest, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is held to establish the cause of the death of the deceased. The object is to find whether a person died of a natural death, homicidal death or a suicidal death. It is not necessary to enter all the details or the name of the accused in the inquest report (See Pedda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153). 18. In the present case, however, we notice that inquest report does mention about the statement of Surinder Kumar having been recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the heading, "brief facts of the case", in Part-I of the Inquest Report (Ext. PW3/A), it is recorded: “.....On examining the dead body, it was found that serious injuries had been inflicted with the stones on the right side of head, eyes and face of the deceased due to which death occurred. From the circumstances a prima facie offence under Section 302/34 IPC appears to have been committed. A separate statement for registration of case is being sent to the Police Station." (Emphasis supplied) 19. From the circumstances a prima facie offence under Section 302/34 IPC appears to have been committed. A separate statement for registration of case is being sent to the Police Station." (Emphasis supplied) 19. We may notice that there is unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of Jagat Ram (PW3), in his cross-examination, that inquest report was prepared after recording statement of Surinder Kumar. The contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, does not stand the test of legal scrutiny or the scrutiny of the evidence on record. 20. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that non-mentioning the name of the accused in the inquest report does not dent the prosecution case in any manner : (c) The present appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of the evidence which was not found satisfactory in respect of the two other accused who were acquitted. 21. The next submission of Mr, Vats was that if ocular version of Surinder Kumar was not found satisfactory against two of the accused, resulting in their acquittal, the same cannot be held good against the accused appellant. Learned Counsel attempted to show from the defence evidence that accused Karam Chand was not present in the house of the bridegroom on the night when Kuldip was killed. Mr. Vats urged that accused atleast is entitled to the benefit of doubt for this reason alone. 22. The contention is misplaced. It is true that co-accused Vikas Chauhan (A2) and Sudhir (A3) have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge. They were acquitted for the reason that the sole eye witness Surinder Kumar was not sure about the participation. of Vikas Chauhan and Sudhir in the killing of the accused. Learned trial Judge in para 38 of his judgment noticed : "So far as participation of accused No. 2 Vikas Chauhan alias Bantu and accused No. 3 Sudhir alias Shimpu in causing the death of Kuldip alias Kukkar is concerned, the testimony of (PW 1), Surinder Kumar, who is the sole eye witness to the occurrence, is highly suspicious and doubtful. The said witness in his testimony during the course of cross-examination stated that he could not say with certainty whether both Vikas Chauhan alias Bantu and Sudhir given beatings to Kuldip or trying to save him, clearly shows that said witness is doubtful regarding the participation of accused No. 2 Vikas Chauhan and accused No. 3 Sudhir in causing the death of Kuldip." 23. We find that Jagat Ram (PW 3) is categorical in his evidence that he was informed by Surinder Kumar that Kuldip was killed by accused Karam Chand. Surinder Kumar did not name either Vikas Chauhan or Sudhir to Jagat Ram, the Vice President of the Panchayat. In the words of Jagat Ram, "At about 8.00 a.m., Surinder came to me at my house and he informed me that Kuldip alias Kukkar was killed by accused Karam Chand who was accompanied with two more boys." It is pertinent to note that Surinder Kumar did not name the "two more boys". Even Surinder Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that he was not certain if Sudhir and Vikas Chauhan were trying to save Kuldip or were giving him beatings. In his own words, "I cannot say with certainty if both Sudhir and Vikas Chauhan were giving beatings to Kuldip or were trying to save him." 24. In view of the evidence discussed above, there were good reasons for the trial Judge for not relying upon the ocular evidence of Surinder Kumar qua accused Vikas Chauhan and Sudhir. It is now well settled that in a given case, ocular version might be believed against one and not against the other accused for justifiable reasons. The maxim "falsus in omnibus in omnibus" indeed is not applicable in criminal trial. The principle is neither sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. 25. Learned Counsel then referred to the evidence of Hoshiar Singh (DW 2), in his cross-examination to the effect that Karam Chand was not present in the marriage and contended that presence of accused-appellant, in view of this evidence, in the marriage is doubtful and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hoshiar Singh who conducted the band on the fateful night, we notice, was a prosecution witness. He was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor for the reasons that he had been won over by the accused. Hoshiar Singh who conducted the band on the fateful night, we notice, was a prosecution witness. He was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor for the reasons that he had been won over by the accused. The Perusal of there evidence of Hoshiar Singh that on the Morning of March 13, 1999, Bridegroom informed his father and other relations present in the house that an unidentified body was lying on the road above the house otherwise is corroborated by Suresh Kumar (PW 2), relative of A-1 and Jagat Ram (PW 3). (d) Accused appellant had no motive to kill the deceased, 26. Mr. Vats urged that the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased and, therefore, the story of the prosecution that accused killed the deceased is not plausible. True it is. The present accused-appellant did not have any motive to kill the deceased but that is not fatal to the prosecution. It is now well settled that if the prosecution is able to prove existence of some motive, then it is a relevant factor to be considered in a murder trial but failure to prove motive would not in itself render the prosecution story unbelievable. It is always difficult for the prosecution to prove on record as to what transpired in the mind of an accused killer. The Court is not in a position to judge or assess the mental state of an assailant as observed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shyam Sunder, 2000 (10) SCC 49. Thus the absence of motive in the present case is not fatal to the prosecution case. (e) It was not possible for Surinder Kumar to have identified the accused appellant in the absence of adequate light at the place of occurrence. 27. Lastly, Mr. Vats attempted to assail the evidence of Surinder Kumar on the grounds that it was not possible for Surinder Kumar to have identified the accused/appellant in the absence of adequate light. 28. Argument is misplaced. Firstly, there is no evidence on record to show that it was dark at the place of occurrence and, therefore, it was not possible for Surinder Kumar to have identified the assailant. On the other hand, there is unchallenged testimony of Surinder Kumar (PW 1) that the gate, passage and road was well lit with electric tubes due to which there was "brightness" on the road. On the other hand, there is unchallenged testimony of Surinder Kumar (PW 1) that the gate, passage and road was well lit with electric tubes due to which there was "brightness" on the road. In his own words, "the gate as well as passage had electric tubes due to which there was brightness". This testimony is not disputed in the cross-examination. The only thing put to this witness in cross-examination was that he did not tell the Police about the installation of the tube light at the gate. The explanation of this witness was that he did lot do so as the police did not ask him about it. It is significant to note that even the defence witness Des Raj bridegroom (DW 1) iid not dispute this part of the testimony. The defence did not put to this witness that the place where dead body was found, was dark or not lighted. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that in marriages, the place of marriage and house are well lit with decorative and other lights. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel that light at the place of occurrence was inadequate to identify the assailant by the witness. 29. This apart, Surinder Kumar had well known accused Karam Chand as both of them had danced together on that night and, therefore, it would not have been difficult for Surinder Kumar to have identified the assailant. 30. In Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1808, deceased Bhagelu Singh Yadav and his wife were gunned down by armed assailants during summer night in the month of June, 1980. A neighbour Ram Janam Rai was also shot dead. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the witness could not have identified the assailants as it was a moonless, night and there was no lamp burning and therefore, it would have been pitch dark when the occurrence took place. In this background, Their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment observed thus: "8. We have considered the said contention from all its angles. Even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. In this background, Their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment observed thus: "8. We have considered the said contention from all its angles. Even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. The proximity at which the assailants would have confronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there from the glove of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a roof less terrace are germane factors to be borne in mind while judging whether the victims could have had enough visibility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and above those factors, we must bear in mind the further fact that assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers. We are, therefore, not pursuaded to assume that it would not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there was possibility for making a wrong identification of them. We are keeping in mind the fact that even the assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targetted without any mistake from among those who were sleeping on the terrace. If the light then available though meagre, was enough for the assailants why should we think that same light was not enough for the injured who would certainly have pointedly focussed their eyes on the faces of the intruders standing in front of them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." 31. Again in Kedar Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1481 (1st) Supplement, an argument was raised that eye witness could not have witnessed the occurrence as it was a dark night and that the light from the temple where an electric bulb of high power was said to be on could not be enough to identify the assailants. Their Lordships in the circumstances ruled: "It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of his body, clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. etc.....” We find no merit in the contention of Shri Vats. 32. Their Lordships in the circumstances ruled: "It has also to be observed that even on a full dark night there is never total darkness. There can be other means to identify another through the shape of his body, clothes, gait, manner of walking etc. etc.....” We find no merit in the contention of Shri Vats. 32. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of an eye witness, the Court must test the evidence on the touchstone of two principles: (a) Whether in the given circumstances it was possible for the eye witness to be present at the scene; (b) Whether there is anything inherent improbable or unreliable in the evidence of the eye witness. (See : State of U.P. v. Noorie, 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 945. 33. We have already discussed that the presence of the eye witness at the place of occurrence is not disputed and there were cogent reasons, as explained by the witness, to be present at that place of occurrence inasmuch as the witness was disturbed that his companion deceased Kuldip did not return back though the band had stopped playing. He therefore came out to the courtyard where the band was being played and saw the deceased in the company of the accused including the appellant Karam Chand, he naturally followed them and witnessed accused Karam Chand inflicting the fatal injuries on the head of the deceased. 34. So far the credibility of ocular evidence is concerned, there is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness which may render his evidence unreliable, moreso, when this witness is corroborated by Suresh Kumar (PW 2) and Jagat Ram (PW 3) in all material aspects. It is the evidence of Suresh Kumar that marriage of his sister was solemnized with Des Raj and the marriage party returned back to the village of bridegroom Jhanjarta on the evening of March 12, 1999. It is his evidence that he alongwith Kuldip deceased and few other children accompanied his sister to the house of bridegroom. Surinder Kumar (PW 1) reached the house of bridegroom at about 6.30 p.m. After taking some refreshment, all of them started dancing to the tune of the band. All the three accused, including Al Karam Chand, appellant, reached the place of bridegroom at about 9.30 a.m. They also started dancing. Surinder Kumar (PW 1) reached the house of bridegroom at about 6.30 p.m. After taking some refreshment, all of them started dancing to the tune of the band. All the three accused, including Al Karam Chand, appellant, reached the place of bridegroom at about 9.30 a.m. They also started dancing. He knew appellant A-l as A-l is bridegrooms first cousin,, i.e., bridegrooms fathers sisters son and during the period between betrothal and the marriage, relatives of both the sides used to meet each other. It is his evidence that dinner was served at about 10.30 p.m. After taking the meals, they danced for some time and thereafter, he alongwith Surinder and deceased Kuldip went to sleep in the room given to them. He slept on one bed, whereas, the other bed was shared by Surinder and Kuldip. According to this witness, next day morning at about 5.30 a.m., he was woken up by Surinder Kumar who informed him that Kuldip was killed with stones by Karam Chand (A-l) and his companions (A2) and (A3). He alongwith Surinder went to the place of occurrence and found Kuldip lying dead. By that time, none else had woken. He asked Surinder to go to Pradhan of their Panchayat and inform him and the other villagers about the occurrence. According to him, they (Up Pradhan of the village and other villagers) returned back at about 9.30 a.m. by which time, Police had also arrived on the spot. 35. Jagat Ram (PW 3) is resident of village Bharmat and is Up Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Holta. Corroborating the testimony of Surinder Kumar and Suresh Kumar, he stated that he knew Kuldip deceased, Surinder Kumar and Suresh Kumar. It was his evidence that on March 13, 1999, at about 8.00 a.m.,.Surinder Kumar came to him and informed him that Kuldip had been killed by accused Karam Chand who was accompanied by two other boys. He further informed him that Kuldip was beaten to death with a stone at village Jhanjharta. According to this witness, he in turn informed the Police on telephone. Police in turn told him that they had already been informed of the occurrence and were leaving for village Jhanjarta. Police asked him to come to village Jhanjarta immediately. He further informed him that Kuldip was beaten to death with a stone at village Jhanjharta. According to this witness, he in turn informed the Police on telephone. Police in turn told him that they had already been informed of the occurrence and were leaving for village Jhanjarta. Police asked him to come to village Jhanjarta immediately. So he alongwith 16/17 other persons of his panchayat, including Surinder Kumar, reached the place of occurrence at 9,30 a.m. by which time police had also reached there. It is his evidence that police recorded the statement of Surinder Kumar which was sent to Police Station, Palampur for registration of the case. He also stated that inquest report was thereafter prepared which was signed by him and is Ext. PW 3/A and PW 3/B. 36. We hardly need to emphasize that ordinarily, ocular evidence of an eye witness is sufficient to warrant conviction if such evidence inspires confidence. It is only as a measure of caution that Court may look for some confirming circumstances (See : Shrishail Nageshi Parev. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 341). At the risk of repetition, we may again say that ocular evidence of Surinder Kumar is corroborated by Suresh Kumar (PW 2) and Jagat Ram (PW 3) both of whom emerge unshaken from the cross-examination. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that Suresh Kumar (PW 2) is none else than the brother of the bride and he has no reason to falsely implicate Karam Chand A-l, who is first cousin of the husband of his sister, as the person who killed deceased Kuldip. 37. To conclude, we are of the view that ocular evidence of PW 1 is reliable and inspires confidence. His evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court to convict the accused. 38. No other point is urged before us. 39. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.