JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Addl.'Sessions Judge (Fast. Track), Sirohi Camp Abu Road in Sessions Case No. 69/2002 (18/2000) by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-II in place of 302 IPC and 447 IPC, and sentenced him in the following manner: Name of accused appellant Convicted u/s. Sentence awarded Saka 304 Part-II IPC To undergo five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' imprisonment. 447 IPC To undergo three months imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It may be stated that since it is a jail appeal and the accused appellant was not being represented by anybody, therefore, this Court vide order,dated 268.2003 appointed Shri Kalu Ram Bhati as Amicus Curiae and he has argued the case on behalf of the accused appellant. 3. It arises the following circumstances: On 29.1.2000 at about 7.00 PM, PW 1 Jora Ram lodged a written report Ex.P/l with the Police Station Rohida District Sirohi stating inter-alia at that on 29.1.2000 in the evening at about .00 PM, his younger brother Bhima's wife Reshmi (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was cutting grass in the filed and at that,time PW2 Smt. Jetu was also with the deceased and she was also cutting grass and at that time, the accused appellant, who was having lathi in his hand, came there and he gave lathi below on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, deceased felt down and succumbed to her injuries o the. spot. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/l that at that time, Moti rushed towards the place and he tried to catch hold the accused appellant, but the accused appellant ran away and this incident was also seen by PW4 Ropi. ' On this report Ex.P/1, police registered the case being No. 14/2000 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was got prepared by the police. The accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P122 and on the information of the accused appellant, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex. P17. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW 10 Dr. During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was got prepared by the police. The accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P122 and on the information of the accused appellant, a lathi was got recovered through fard Ex. P17. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW 10 Dr. Sumer Singh Bhati and post mortem report is Ex.P/17 where it was opined that the cause of death was shock developed due to head injury resulted in extra and intra cranial haemorrhage. After usual investigation, police submitted challan for the offence under Section 447, 302 IPC against the accused appellant in the Court Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court Session. On 23.1.2001, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road framed charges for the offence under sections 302, 447 IPC against the accused appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi through impugned judgment and order dated 20.5.2003 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-lI IPC in place of 3021 PC and 447 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia: (i) That since in this case 10 was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, the recovery of lathi in question at the instance of the accused appellant cannot be said to have been proved and furthermore, that recovery cannot be said to have been proved because the witnesses of the lard of recover Ex.P/7, namely, PW6 Ratanlal and PW7 Lukiya have been declared hostile, but the learned trial Judge further observed that this fact would not affect the case of the prosecution. (ii) That the learned trial Judge placed reliance on the star eye witness PW2 Jeetu and the argument that since deceased was the mother-in-law of PW2 Jeetu, therefore, the statement of PW2 Jeetu should have not been believed was rejected. (ii) That the learned trial Judge placed reliance on the star eye witness PW2 Jeetu and the argument that since deceased was the mother-in-law of PW2 Jeetu, therefore, the statement of PW2 Jeetu should have not been believed was rejected. (iii) That the statement of PW2 Jeetu was further corroborated from the statement of another eye witness PW4 Ropi and it was further observed by the learned trial Judge that in case PW4 Ropi was not to be treated as an eye witness, the statement of PW2 Jeetu alone was sufficient as the same was corroborated by medical evidence. (iiiA) That presence of PW2 Jeetu on the spot cannot be doubted in any manner and from this point of view also, the learned trial Judge treated her as an eye witness and placed reliance on her statement. (iv) That lathi blow on the head of the deceased was given by the accused appellant. (v) That there was two injuries on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, she died and the same were caused by the accused appellant. (vi) That since the deceased was about 60 years of age and lathi was not a deadly weapon, therefore, if the accused appellant caused lathi blow on the head of the deceased; who was at that time about 60 years of age, intention o the part of the accused appellant. to murder her cannot be inferred and at the most knowledge was there and therefore, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-II in place of 302 IPC. (vii) That the prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant for the offence under section 447 IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail. 4. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has made the following two submissions: (i) That since PW2 Jeetu is daughter-in-law of the deceased, therefore, she was an interested and relative witness and thus, no reliance should have been placed on her solitary statement and furthermore, conviction cannot take place on her solitary statement. 4. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has made the following two submissions: (i) That since PW2 Jeetu is daughter-in-law of the deceased, therefore, she was an interested and relative witness and thus, no reliance should have been placed on her solitary statement and furthermore, conviction cannot take place on her solitary statement. (ii) That since the fact of recovery of lathi in question at the instance of the accused appellant has not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, from this point of view also, the case of the prosecution should have not been believed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned AddL Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the case: 7. Before proceeding further, first medical evidence' of this case has to be seen. 8. PW10 Dr. Sumer Singh Bhati in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 31.1.2000 he was Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Rob Ida and on that day, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on her body: (i) Lacerated wound (clotted blood over it) of 2"x 1 cm x 2cm at left occipital region (Gaping of margins present). (ii) Depressed fracture of 2"x 1 " under the injury No.1 Membranes are torn and intracranial and extracranial haemorrhage present. (iii) Lacerated wound (clottedblood over it) of 2" x 2cm x 2cm at left parietal bone (Gaping of margins present). a (iv) Depressed fracture of 1.5"xl" under the injury No.3 Membranes are torn & intracranial & Extracranial Haemorrhage present. He has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was shock developed due to head injuries resulting in extra and intra cranial'haemorrhage. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/17. 9. Thus, from the statement of PW 10 Dr. Sumer Singh Bhati, it is very much clear that deceased received above four injuries and she died because of shock developed due to head injuries resulting in extra and intra-cranial haemorrhage and therefore, the death of the deceased was homicidal one and the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed. 10. Sumer Singh Bhati, it is very much clear that deceased received above four injuries and she died because of shock developed due to head injuries resulting in extra and intra-cranial haemorrhage and therefore, the death of the deceased was homicidal one and the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed. 10. The next question for consideration is whether the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by the accused appellant or not. 11. So far as PWI Joraram, who lodged the report Ex.P/l is concerned, he has frankly admitted that he was not present at the time of alleged incident. 12. So far as the point whether PW4 Ropi should be treated as eye witness or not, it may be stated here that PW2 Jeetu, who is start witness, has admitted in her crossexamination that PW 1 Joraram and PW4 Ropi came together and PW4 Ropi has herself admitted in her cross-examination that it was correct to say that at the time of occurrence she was not in the field, but when she was coming towards field, she saw the occurrence. Therefore, the presence of PW4 Ropi at the time of alleged occurrence appears to be doubtful as PW2 Jeetu has clearly admitted that PW I Joraram and PW4 Ropi came together. When PW 1 Joraram has not seen the occurrence, in the same light, it can be concluded that PW4 Ropi has also not seen the occurrence. Therefore, PW4 Ropi cannot be treated as eye witness, 13. Now there remains solitary eye witness PW2 Jeetu and there is no dispute on the point that deceased was her mother-in-law and therefore, from this point of view, she is a relative witness and placing reliance on her sole testimony, the learned trial Judge recorded the findings of conviction against the accused appellant. 14. In this respect, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that since PW2 Jeetu was daughter-in-law of the deceased, therefore, she was an interested and relative witness and thus, no reliance should have been place on her statement by the learned trial Judge and furthermore, conviction cannot take on here solitary statement. 15. To appreciate the above contention, position of law in respect of evidence of interested witness, related witness and solitary witness has to be discussed here. 16. 15. To appreciate the above contention, position of law in respect of evidence of interested witness, related witness and solitary witness has to be discussed here. 16. A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of case, cannot be regarded as an "interested witness", as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1977 SC 472 ) . 17. The mere fact that the witnesses were relatives or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightaway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Naqinbhai Dhulabhai Patel ( AIR 1983 SC 839 ) may be seen. 18. It is well settled that evidence of interested witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground of interestedness, but their evidence should be subjected to a close scrutiny. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses. Evidence of interested witness cannot be equated with that of a tainted witness. There is no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. Simply because an eye witness happens to be the wife of the deceased, her evidence cannot be discarded if her testimony is otherwise acceptable. 19. "Related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the possible eye witness in the circumstances of case cannot be said to be "interested". For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 ) may be seen. 20. Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1976 SC 2304 ) .Quality for quantity of evidence material 21. 20. Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1976 SC 2304 ) .Quality for quantity of evidence material 21. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act enshrines the well recognised maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed not counted." The matter thus depends upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of evidence even of a single witness whose testimony has either to be accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even, as the wilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of the accused, maybe established by the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivalu Thevar v. State of Madras ( AIR 1957 Sc 614 ) , Mogsoodan v. State of UP ( AIR 1983 SC 126 ) , Kartik Malhar V/s: State of Bihar ( 1996(1) SCC 614 ) , Praveen v. State of Haryana ( 1996(11) SCC 365 ) and Balo Yadav v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1997 SC 2678 ) , maybe referred to 22. In State of UP v. Hakim.Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 184 ) , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that law does not require a plurality of witnesses. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, provided the evidence of the witness is trustworthy. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (1995 SCC (Cr.) . and corroboration is required only in case of doubt or suspicion. 24. It is settled law that corroboration is not rule of law, but one of caution as an assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of the testimony of solitary witness. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (1995 SCC (Cr.) . and corroboration is required only in case of doubt or suspicion. 24. It is settled law that corroboration is not rule of law, but one of caution as an assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of the testimony of solitary witness. The occasion for the presence at the time of occurrence, opportunity to witness the crime, the normal conduct of the witness to the victim, his predisposition towards the accused, are some of the circumstances to be kept in view to weigh and accept the ocular evidence of a witness. It is not the quantum of the evidence but its quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance to the court for acceptance. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mikiyath Singh v. State of Punjab (1991(2) Crimes Vol.2(SC) 191) may be referred to. 25. Thus, it can be concluded that (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated. One credible witness out weight the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. (2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for, example in the case of a child witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character. (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of single witness is or is not necessary must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes. ' 26. Keeping the above principles in mind, the solitary statement of PW2 Jeetu is being critically examined. 27. So far as the presence of PW2 Jeetu on the place of occurrence is concerned, it may be stated here that her name was found in the report Ex.P/1 lodged by PWI Joraram and the report was lodged just after the occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility that her name was included with some colourable motive. 27. So far as the presence of PW2 Jeetu on the place of occurrence is concerned, it may be stated here that her name was found in the report Ex.P/1 lodged by PWI Joraram and the report was lodged just after the occurrence and therefore, there was no possibility that her name was included with some colourable motive. It was also stated in the report Ex.P/I that PW2 Jeetu and deceased both were cutting grass in the field and therefore, the presence of PW2 Jeetu on the place of occurrence is well established. 28. PW2 Jeetu in her statement recorded in Court has stated that she and deceased were cutting grass in the field and at that time, the accused appellant came there and he, was having lathi in his hand he gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased, as a result of which, deceased'fell down and died. She has further stated that thereafter, her Jeth moti reached there and he tried to catchhoid the accused appellant, but he ran away. She has further stated that there was a dispute between the accused appellant and deceased over some money transaction.She was cross-examined, but nothing, has come on record, which affects her testimony on the point that the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by the accused appellant. 29. It may be stated here that so far as the non-production of Moti is concerned a perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court shows that he was called from time to time, but since there was a report that he had gone to Gujarat, therefore, in these circumstances, he was not produced by the prosecution. Thus, non-production of Moti would not make the case of the prosecution doubtful as it cannot be said that he was not produced by the prosecution deliberately. 30. From the statement of PW2 Jeetu, it cannot reasonably be inferred or presumed that she was telling lie or falsely implicating the accused appellant. Her statement appears to be straight forward and does not suffer from any material infirmity. Her statement is fully corroborated by medical evidence. 31. Therefore, it is concluded that statement of PW2 Jeetu .is reliable and trustworthy and reliance can be placed on her testimony. Her statement appears to be straight forward and does not suffer from any material infirmity. Her statement is fully corroborated by medical evidence. 31. Therefore, it is concluded that statement of PW2 Jeetu .is reliable and trustworthy and reliance can be placed on her testimony. Simply because she happens to be daughter-in-law of deceased, her evidence cannot be discarded as her testimony is worth reliable and fully corroborated by medical evidence. In these circumstances, if the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the statement of PW2 Jeetu, he has committed no illegality in doing so. From her statement, it is well proved that the injuries, which were received by deceased on her head, were caused by the accused appellant and therefore, the findings of the learned trial Judge in this respect are liable to be confirmed. 32. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that since PW2 Jeetu was highly interested and relative witness being daughter-in-law of the deceased,-therefore; her evidence should have not been believed by the learned trial Judge stands rejected. 33. No doubt the fact of recovery of lathi at the instance of the accused appellant has not been proved by the prosecution, but as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge that this fact would not affect the case of the prosecution as from the evidence of . sole eye witness PW2 Jeetu, which is corroborated by medical evidence, it is very much clear that the accused appellant caused injuries on the head of the deceased.Apart from this, where there is direct evidence, the evidence of recovery is of little importance. From this point of view also, if the prosecution has not proved the fact of recovery, it would not affect the case of the prosecution. 34. Hence, the argument that since the fact of recovery has not been proved therefore, prosecution case should not have been believed, stands rejected. 35. For the reasons stated above, no inference is called for with the find~ngs.of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the accused appellant for the offence under section 304 Part-II and 447 IPC as they are based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence on record. I see no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 36. I see no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 36. Apart from this, it may be stated here that while appreciating the findings of the trial court, rule of practice which has almost the force of law is that the appellate Court should not reverse a finding of fact rested on a proper appreciation of oral evidence. Thus, opinion f trial judge on appreciation of evidence should not be disturbed except for exceptional reasons. In this case, I see no exceptional reasons.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the accused appellant Saka is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, Camp Abu Road.Appeal dismissed. *******