Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. From perusal of the record it will appear that from the appellant Surendra Prasad, two mote accused Jeewan Kumar and Manoj Kumar were also charged along with under Sec. 376(2)(f) and (g) as well under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, in short) but in course of trial the other two accused appear to have absconded. hence judgment was delivered with regard to the sole appellant, aforesaid who was convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Secs. 376(2)(f) and (g) of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and, lastly, under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. under which he was charged alone. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, all sentences to run concurrently. 2. This is a case in which, as per allegation a minor girl was raped while she had gone to collect cowdung cakes from a contiguous house where those were kept by the informant and was shot dead (after rape) by the appellant and others when she cried out, for which her mother Mala Devi got her fardbeyan recorded on 1-3-1995 at 4.45 p.m. As per the allegations, as unfolded in the Fardbeyan (Exhibit 7) recorded at Tekari Block where her husband had earlier worked as Nazir who had been transferred to Subdivision at Sherghati, her daughter Rani Kumari, about eleven years old on that day about 3.00 p.m. had gone to the (adjacent) house in which they used to keep cow-dung cakes in one of the rooms and in which house a temporary driver, Jeewan Kumar, one of the accused also lived. But after sometime she heard her loud cry and when she was running towards that house she heard a firing sound and when she reached there she saw the appellant with pistol and other two accused, out of whom Manoj Kumar was servant of the Circle Officer fleeing away. Inside in the room in which Jeewan Kumar lived, she found her daughter smeared with blood, and dead. On Hulla people came who were told about the incident she also claimed that the Circle Officer. Promod Kumar was adversely inclined towards her family with whose connivance her daughter was so killed. 3. Inside in the room in which Jeewan Kumar lived, she found her daughter smeared with blood, and dead. On Hulla people came who were told about the incident she also claimed that the Circle Officer. Promod Kumar was adversely inclined towards her family with whose connivance her daughter was so killed. 3. The defence of the appellant, in course of the trial was that of innocence and false implication. 4. PW 1, Shyam Sunder Prasad is father of the deceased, who, as per his evidence, was informed by the Sub-divisional Officer concerned about the incident where after in the evening he reached his house in Tekari Block and was told about the incident by his wife. Some contradictions from his previous statement have also been taken, to discuss those would not appear to be material because his statement actually had come much after the occurrence and was based on that he had learnt from his wife, thus, hearsay. But other points in his evidence may be considered. This witness knew all the three accused, as claimed by him and he admitted that father of this appellant was a Peon in the same Block whereas Manoj Kumar was the servant of the Circle Officer Promod Kumar and Jeewan Kumar the third one said to be residing in the house concerned was driver of the Circle Officer on daily wages. This witness said that he lived in the official quarters there but after his transfer in June. 1994 he had gone to Sherghati though his family continued to live in the same quarters as the Circle Officer had not issued him last pay certificate. He said that the three accused were living in that official quarters. He also testified that in that adjacent quarters his family used to keep cow-dung cakes in a room. As per his evidence Jeewan Kumar had started working in the Block since two or three months prior to the occurrence. He also said that cow-dung cakes were being so kept in the first room of the quarters with the consent of the Circle Officer. He said that in that other quarters there were three rooms out of which two rooms were in his possession the cow dung cakes being kept in one room and some documents in the other. He also said that cow-dung cakes were being so kept in the first room of the quarters with the consent of the Circle Officer. He said that in that other quarters there were three rooms out of which two rooms were in his possession the cow dung cakes being kept in one room and some documents in the other. A room and kitchen were vacant in which room Jeewan used to live on the verbal order of the Circle Officer since two to three months prior to the occurrence. Jeewan used to keep his bedding and stove also in that room. According to the evidence the father of Surendra, appellant, also lived in a quarter. 5. PW 2. Deepak Kumar having been tendered for cross-examination, the only material witness is PW 3, mother of the victim. PW 4 being the doctor who had conducted the postmortem over the dead body and PW 5 being the Police Officer who had conducted the investigation. Therefore, the most important evidence that has been brought on the record is that of Mala Devi. PW 3. Before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and for the State the evidence of Mala Devi may first be considered in detail. This witness also supporting that they were at that time living in a Government quarter at Tekari Block, her husband having been transferred to Sherghati also said that her daughter Rani was murdered at 3.00 p.m. when she had gone to adjoining quarter to bring cow-dung cakes in which house Jeewan and appellant Surendra and Manoj used to live. She said that after sometime when she heard cry of Rani, she came out of her house running and then heard sound of a shot fired from the quarter where cow-dung cakes were kept, and then she saw this appellant along with Jeewan and Manoj coming out of the room of Jeewan, this appellant holding a pistol in his hand who all fled away. She entered the quarter and saw Rani in blood dead. The Block Development Officer also came. She said that at the time of occurrence Rani was eleven years old but subsequently she came to know that she also was raped. She has testified as to how she gave her fardbeyan when the police came. In cross-examination she admitted that Surendra was not an employee in the Block. 6. The Block Development Officer also came. She said that at the time of occurrence Rani was eleven years old but subsequently she came to know that she also was raped. She has testified as to how she gave her fardbeyan when the police came. In cross-examination she admitted that Surendra was not an employee in the Block. 6. She also said that the quarter of the Block Development Officer was about five to six yards away from her house and near to that was the house of the Circle Officer and around the place there were quarters of other staff. She also said that Jeewan had been living in that quarter since about three to four months, not keeping his family with him. She said that there were two doors in the quarters (read room) of Jeewan, one in front which was not visible from the darwaza of her own house and the other on the back. She further said that Surendra also used to live there while admitting that father of this appellant was a Peon in the Block and had a separate quarter in which the parents of the appellant lived. She admitted that she had no quarrel with Surendra earlier. 7. Describing the place of occurrence this witness said that in the front room of that house she used to keep her cow-dung cakes and that room was in her possession. She said that she was keeping those there since before Jeewan had come to live in that quarter because there was no space in her own house to keep the cakes. She said that sometimes she and sometimes her daughter used to go to bring the cow dung cakes. According to the witness on the date of occurrence the victim had come back from the School at 2.00 p.m. She also claimed that while bringing those cakes they did not use to go to the room of Jeewan which was to the east of the rooms in her possession. Here also she has described the two doors in the room where Jeewan was living. She admitted that after postmortem her husband as well the police had told her that her daughter was also raped. She admitted that she was the first to see the dead body and that the Block Development Officer had come fifteen to twenty minutes thereafter. Here also she has described the two doors in the room where Jeewan was living. She admitted that after postmortem her husband as well the police had told her that her daughter was also raped. She admitted that she was the first to see the dead body and that the Block Development Officer had come fifteen to twenty minutes thereafter. She could not say as to whether the Block Development Officer had called the police but said that the Daroga had come one or one and half hours after the Block Development Officer had come and she had given her statement in presence of the Block Development Officer and other people. In cross-examination this witness said that she had seen the accused fleeing away from a distance of six to seven steps. This is all the evidence of this witness. 8. Support to the evidence of this witness has come from PW 4. Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, who conducted autopsy over the dead body on 2-3-1995 at 10.30 a.m. and found the following injuries: (i) One oval wound of entry 3/4" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep, located approximately 2" below suprasternal notch at front of upper part of chest in middle. Margin of wound blackened inverted and scorched. Direction of the wound was front to back obliquely slightly downward with one wound of exit 1" x 3/4" at back of left chest, located approximately 1" left from fifth vertebral spine. Apical portion of both lungs, chambers of heart, pleura and pericardium were found lacerated, chest cavity was filled with dark blood clots. (ii) There was presence of dark blood clots with matting of pubic hair, vulva was found grossly bruised. There was laceration of lower part of posterior wall of vagina. Recent complete rupture of hymen with attached dark blood clot at the floor of the wound. Posterior fornix obliterated. Vagina containing whitish sticky substance, resembling semen." 9. Doctor collected the vaginal swab in a sealed container and noted that the same was being forwarded along with the report to the chemical examiner at Patna. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature injury No. (1) was dangerous of life and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature caused by fire-arm from close range. Injury No. (ii), in the opinion of the doctor was caused by sexual intercourse. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature injury No. (1) was dangerous of life and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature caused by fire-arm from close range. Injury No. (ii), in the opinion of the doctor was caused by sexual intercourse. Death was caused within eighteen to twenty four hours, due to shock and haemorrhage. In cross-examination this witness asserted that injury No. (1) was caused by fire-arm, except by a gun. 10. Now coming to the evidence of PW 5, the Investigation Officer. He told the Court that on the date of occurrence while he was at Tekari Police Station, at about 4.15 p.m. he received a telephonic call from Block Development Officer about murder of a girl in the Block which he recorded in Sanha Dairy No. 15 of that date and thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence. About the Sanha entry this witness clarified that- subsequently on 20-1-1996 the extremists had put the Police Station to fire in which documents, including Sanha diary register, were destroyed, that at 4.45 p.m. he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. He also prepared the inquest report (Exhibit 6) in which he noted that she had suffered a fire-arm injury in the chest. 11. This witness noted in course of inspection of the place of occurrence that the quarters in question was possessed by Jeewan Kumar, the accused as well by the father of the victim who had since been transferred. In the room of entrance in a corner he found about one hundred cow-dung cakes. The adjacent southern room was also in possession of the family members of the victim. Adjacent east to that there was a room, whose doors were found open with pundi of the western door broken. In that room he found household goods kept on the rack in the western wall. At the northern side of the room he found a cot with bedding over it on which also he found blood. In that very room near the eastern wall he found a mat spread, which also was covered by a gendra and bed-sheet. On this bed he found blood smeared dead body of Rani Kumari. He found a sandal to the west of the bed near the deceased and to the north he found another bigger sandal, smeared with blood. In that very room near the eastern wall he found a mat spread, which also was covered by a gendra and bed-sheet. On this bed he found blood smeared dead body of Rani Kumari. He found a sandal to the west of the bed near the deceased and to the north he found another bigger sandal, smeared with blood. On the bed on which the deceased was lying red coloured beads were found scattered. He found much blood in the room as also other household goods. Adjacent west to this quarter was the quarter of the father of the deceased and to the east of that was the residential portion of the father of Surendra. The Police Officer seized the goods as noticed above along with blood stained bed and beads of a necklace as also blood which was collected from the floor, in presence of witnesses which seizure list was marked Exhibit 7. 12. In cross-examination he admitted that Tekari Police Station was about two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. He admitted that at the time of the inspection of the place of occurrence only the informant was present with him. He also had recorded the statement of the Block Development Officer and of the other witnesses named by him in paragraph 17 of the deposition he said that Jeewan Kumar was doing work of driver of the Circle Officer during the period of strike. This witness also said about the differences between the father of the deceased and the Circle Officer relating to the repairs of the official jeep. This witness could not verify about the allotment of quarter because of strike of nongazetted employees. 13. From the evidence of this witness it also appears that a suggestion was thrown to him about the defence of the accused excluding that of the present appellant, that since there was allegation of misappropriation of property against the husband of the informant in which regard the Circle Officer had submitted a report to the Collector, Gaya, his servant and the driver were falsely implicated. This is all the evidence on the record. 14. This is all the evidence on the record. 14. Coming to the arguments of the learned counsel, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer had told that the Block Development Officer had informed him about the murder and his statement was also recorded along with the statements of some other witnesses but none of them have been examined in course of the trial which puts a spoke in the wheel of trustworthiness of the prosecution case. It is true that Block Development Officer and other witnesses have not been examined but it is equally true that according to the prosecution Case, as unfolded the only witness who had seen the accused was the informant. According to the evidence of PW 3 the Block Development Officer had come to the place of occurrence about fifteen to twenty minutes after the occurrence. 15. There is no law that says that evidence of a solitary witness to the occurrence must need corroboration from other witnesses before reliance can be placed on it. If the evidence of the solitary witness is found to be reliable and trustworthy, there is no reason why that should be disbelieved for want of corroboration. What may not be proved in a particular case by a number of witnesses could be proved by one single witness depending upon the credibility and trustworthiness of such evidence. However, the evidence of a solitary witness must be such as to inspire confidence so that the conviction of the accused may be based solely on that. 16. In this case the evidence of PW 3 stands fully supported by the evidence of the doctor. PW 3 said that she heard a firing sound and saw the three accused fleeing away from the room where the dead body was found this appellant holding a pistol in his hand and the doctor had found death because of one fire-arm injury in the chest which was not by a weapon like gun. Therefore, a vital point of corroboration to the evidence of PW 3 is available on the record. 17. From the evidence of PW 3 it stands proved that at about 3.00 p.m. the victim was sent to fetch cow-dung cakes from the adjoining quarter. Her cry was heard after sometime. The informant, when she went there, did not claim about rape obviously because she could not have known that the victim being already dead. 17. From the evidence of PW 3 it stands proved that at about 3.00 p.m. the victim was sent to fetch cow-dung cakes from the adjoining quarter. Her cry was heard after sometime. The informant, when she went there, did not claim about rape obviously because she could not have known that the victim being already dead. But from the evidence of the doctor it is also clear that the girl before she was killed was brutally raped. It, therefore, follows that she was raped before being killed and the reason that she could not attract people earlier by raising hulla could only be that while raping her she was not in a position to raise hulla, and for that she must have been restrained by the co-accused. It was only when the rape was complete that somehow she managed to raise hulla. It is very obvious that she had to be eliminated because she must have recognized the perpetrators of brutality against her person and by raising hulla and shown that she was not going to keep mum about the crime. 18. There does not appear to be any delay in calling the police and in recording the fardbeyan. In so far as non-examination of other witnesses is concerned, it does not appear that they were as material a witness as PW 3. The reluctance of people at large incoming to the aid of the prosecution agency even if they actually have witnessed commission of a crime is well known which is for a variety of reasons which have been discussed in a number of decisions of the Apex Court as well of this Court. Simply because non-examination of other witnesses the prosecution case can not be disbelieved if the evidence of the witness examined in the Court is found to be credible and trustworthy. 19. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Following circumstances stand proved from the evidence on the record:- (i) That father of the victim having been transferred to Sherghati, his family members including the informant and the deceased had continued to live in the same quarter at Tekari Block. (ii) In a room in the adjacent house the informant used to keep cow-dung cakes since that house was earlier vacant and other room was also in possession of the informant side. (ii) In a room in the adjacent house the informant used to keep cow-dung cakes since that house was earlier vacant and other room was also in possession of the informant side. (iii) That co-accused, Jeewan Kumar was allowed to live in the third room where beddings and household goods were found by the Investigating Officer. (iv) That the appellant and one other accused also used to visit that place or they also lived there, as at least two beddings were found in that room, one on the cot and the other on the floor. (v) That the informant or the victim used to fetch cow-dung cakes from that other house whenever necessary. (vi) That on the fateful day at about 3.00 p.m. the victim was sent to fetch the cow-dung cakes from that other house. (vii) That after sometimes after the girl was raped, as appearing from the evidence of the doctor, the informant heard the cry of the victim and she rushed to the adjacent house. She saw this appellant with a pistol and other two accused running out of the room where the dead body was found, who fled away. (viii) That the informant, in that room, found the dead body of the victim where after a case was registered and investigation started. Medical evidence confirms murder. (ix) That the girl was murdered in that room was clear from the amount of blood found in that room. (x) That there had been a scuffle stands proved by finding of scattered beads of the necklace, which the victim was wearing, at the place of occurrence. 20. All these circumstances complete the chain so closely that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the appellant and two others were responsible for confining the girl forcibly in the house where she had gone and because she must have identified them she was murdered after raping her and then the appellant and other two were seen coming out of that room the appellant holding a pistol in his hand. Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the crime of rape and murder was committed by the three accused including the appellant. 21. Therefore, there is no room for doubt that the crime of rape and murder was committed by the three accused including the appellant. 21. Obviously no one had seen the actual commission of rape but from the evidence it is clear that the girl was brutally raped and the very fact that she was not allowed to raise hulla when the rape was being committed proves that the co-accused, when one was committing rape had facilitated rape by keeping the girl quiet. It is obvious that the rape was committed in furtherance of common intention of all the three who had facilitated rape, not having made any attempt to stop that while staying there all along. Under Explanation I of Sec. 376(2) of the Code each member including the appellant would be deemed to have committed gange rape. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the present appellant for the offence of rape also. 22. Since it was this appellant who was seen coming out from the room with pistol it can safely be concluded that it was he who had fired the one shot that proved fatal to the deceased. Therefore, it could be concluded that this appellant was guilty under Sec. 302 of the Code. However, it will appear that when the trial commenced all the three accused were present who all were charged under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Code. The other two accused appear to have escaped the trial by absconding. But we will not interfere in the conviction of the accused under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Code since the circumstances also reveal that there was common intention to kill the deceased for the reason that she must have identified the culprits. 23. Conviction of the appellant under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act also need not be interfered with because the fire-arm which obviously was used in commission of the crime was seen in possession of the appellant. 24. In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed.