Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Shyama Ram Shyam Lal against the Judgment and order dt. 18.2002 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Shri Ganganagar by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year’s R.I. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: i) That on 27.98 at about 4 p.m. PW.3 Bhagi Ram gave Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) to PW.9 Shaganlal (SHO, Police Station Gharsana Camp Rohi) inter alia stating that in the morning his brother Sahi Ram and sister Maya were working in the filed and at about 1 a.m. his mother Kishni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his father accused appellant Shyama Ram also came there along with food and thereafter they took food and at about 1 p.m. Sahi Ram and Maya had left the place and when he himself started to go back to his home, he heard cries and when he took turn, he saw that his father accused appellant Shyama Ram was giving Kassi blows to his mother (deceased) and when he cried, his father (accused appellant) ran away from the scene and PW.3 Bhagi Ram reached the place where the deceased was lying and he saw that blood was coming from his head and neck and she succumbed to her injuries on the spot. This incident had taken place in filed No. 3, Chak 16 MD. ii) It was further stated by P.W.3 Bhagi Ram in his Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) that relations between decease and the accused appellant were not cordial for some time, but he did not know the reasons for that a thereafter PW.3 Bhagi Ram went to his home and he informed the whole incident to his grand-father Kheta Ram and when he was preparing for going to the police Station PW.9 Shagan Lal (1.0.) came there. iii) On the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) of P.W.3 Bhagi Lal recorded by PW.9 Shagan Lal, a regular FIR Ex.P/12 was chalked out and police started investigation. iii) On the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) of P.W.3 Bhagi Lal recorded by PW.9 Shagan Lal, a regular FIR Ex.P/12 was chalked out and police started investigation. iv) During investigation site plan (Ex.P/5) was prepared and through Fard Ex.P/8 the police seized simple soil and the soil which was stained with blood and through Fard Ex.P/9 police seized Jumper (Article 2) belonging to the deceased in presence of P.W. 5 Wajir Singh and P.W. 6 Nayab Singh on 27.1998. v) P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan conducted post mortem of the body of the deceased and her post mortem report is Ex.P/1 1 and P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan opined that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to hemorrhage due to multiple injury. vi) Through Fard Ex.P/13 the accused appellant was got, arrested on 27.1998 and during investigation he gave information (ExlP/14) to P.W.9 Shagan Lal on 27.98 that he could get recovered a kassi by which he murdered the deceased and in pursuance of that P.W.9 Shagan Lal through Fard Ex.P/15 dtd. 27.98 recovered a kassi (Article 1) in presence of Mangla Ram and P.W.4 Arjan Ram. vii) After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana on 19.98 and through order dtd. 10.1998, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where it was transferred to the Court of Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar. viii) Through order dtd. 21.1999 charge for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge against the accused appellant who denied the same and claimed trial. xi) At the trial 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and 1 witness was produced in defence. xii) At the conclusion of trial, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge through Judgment and order dtd. 18.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. inter alia holding. a) That the deceased died because of the injuries received by her especially injury No. 2 which was fracture on head and thus death of deceased was homicidal one. 18.2002 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. inter alia holding. a) That the deceased died because of the injuries received by her especially injury No. 2 which was fracture on head and thus death of deceased was homicidal one. b) That learned Special Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statement of PW.3 Bhagi Ram who was son of the deceased and he did not find that P.W. 3 Bhagi Ram was falsely implicating his own father (accused appellant) and his statement was found reliable as the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) was given by him on the same day i.e. just after the occurrence. c) That the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge further sought corroboration from the statement of P.W.3 BhagiRam on two points (i) that the jumper (Article 2) belonging to the deceased was also stained with human blood of “A” Group and soil which was seized by police through Fard Ex.P/8 was also stained with human blood of “A” Group and (ii) that kassi (Article 1) was also stained with human blood of same group and it was recovered through Fard Ex.P/15 on the information (Ex.P/14) of accused appellant. d) That the statements of witnesses P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh on the point that they had admitted in cross-examination that on enquiry P.W.3 Bhagi Ram told them that he did not know who had murdered the deceased, were not found acceptable. e) That plea of alibi of accused appellant was rejected. f) That the evidence of recovery ot kassi through Fard Ex.P/15 was found reliable and simple because witnesses of recovery i.e. Mangla Ram and P.W.4 Arjun Ram were close relative of the deceased, their evidence could not be rejected. g) That there was motive on the part of the accused appellant to commit murder of his wife and this evidence was further corroborated from the statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram. h) That the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the extra-judicial confession of the accused appellant made before P.W.8 Murti Devi. i) That the prosecution evidence in this case was further corroborated by medical evidence which was found in the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan and post mortem report Ex.P/11. xii) After being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dtd. i) That the prosecution evidence in this case was further corroborated by medical evidence which was found in the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan and post mortem report Ex.P/11. xii) After being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dtd. 18.2002 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.O., the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. In thisappeal, following submissions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant: i) That since there is only one eye witness (PW.3) Bhagi Ram) in this case who was son of the deceased and thus, he was interested and relative witness, therefore, his evidence should not have been believed by the learned Trial Court as no other independent witness had supported his statement. ii) That statement of P.W.8 Murti Devi in respect of extra judicial confession is also very weak evidence and further more presence of this witness on the spot is also doubtful. iii) That statement of P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh should not have been disbelieved on the point that P.W.3 Bhagi Ram told them that he did not see anybody causing murder of his mother (deceased) and since these witnesses have not been declared hostile, therefore, reliance should have been placed on the statements of P.W. 5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh. iv) That evidence of recovery is also doubtful as the witnesses (Mangla Rani and P.W.4 Arjan Ram) for recovery of Kassi through Fard Ex.P/15 were interested witnesses and the fact that only jumper (Article 2) was seized and not any other cloths of the deceased were seized, also makes the case of prosecution doubtful. .4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment and order dtd. 18.2002 and submitted that the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and do not require and interference by this Court. .5. Heard and perused the record. .6. Beforeproceeding further, first medical evidence of this case has to be seen which is found in the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. Chandra Bhan who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and has proved her post mortem report (Ex.P/1 1) and P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan found the following injuries on her body: .1) Incised wound 15 cm. Chandra Bhan who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and has proved her post mortem report (Ex.P/1 1) and P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan found the following injuries on her body: .1) Incised wound 15 cm. x 3 cm. x muscle deep just below the Rt. ear to chin. 2) Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 2 cm. x bonydeep just above the Rt. eye on the forehead close to hair line. 3) Lacerated wound 8 cmx 3 cmx bonydeep middle of rt. Parietal bone just 10 cm. Above to ear. 7. P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhand has stated that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 8. Thus, from the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. Chandra Bhan the fact that death of the deceased was homicidal one stands proved and there is no dispute on this point. 9. In this case the incident had taken place at about 4. pm. On 2 7.98 and on the same day at about 4 p.m. Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram was recorded on the point that P.W.3 Bhagi Ram was son of the deceased and the deceased was wife of the accused appellant. 10. Before proceeding further law in respect of interested witnesses and relative witness has to be seen. 11. A close relative who is a very natural witnesses in the circumstances of a case cannot be regarded as an “interested witness”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 , 1977 CriLJ 273, (1976) 4 SCC 158 , [1977] 1 SCR 280. 12. The mere fact that the witnesses were relations or interested would not by itself by sufficient to discard their evidence straightway 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 vs. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel, AIR 1983 SC 839 , 1983 CriLJ 1112, 1983 (2) Crimes 332(SC), 1983 (2) GLR 1189, 1983 (1) SCALE 569 , 1983 (3) SCC 316 maybe seen. 13. 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. 13. 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 witnesses 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. Simple because an eye witness happens to be the son of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable. 14. “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 only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested.’ For that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki,AIR1981SC 1390, 1981CriLJ 1012, 1981(1) SCALE645, (1981)2SCC 752, 1981(3) SCR504maybe seen. .15. 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 vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2304 , 1976 CriLJ 1757, (1976) 4 SCC 369 . .QUALITY NOT QUANTITY OF EVIDENCE MATERIAL. .16. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act enshrines the well recognized 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 Guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testiir to the truth of the .case of the prosecution. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadivalu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , 1957 CriLJ 1000, [1957] 1 SCR 981, Maqsoodan vs. State of UP, AIR 1983 SC 126 , 1982 (2) SCALE 1351 , (1983) 1 SCC 218 , [1983] 2 SCR 45, Kartik Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) BLJR655, 1996CriLJ 889, 1995(4) Crimes 5 l6 (SC), JT 1995(8) SC 425, 1995(6) SCALE 400 , (1996) 1 SCC 614 , [1995] Supp 5 SCR 239, Praveen vs. State of Haryana, 1996 VIII AD(SC)202, AIR 1997 SC 310 , 1997 CriLJ 252, 1996(4) Crimes l50(SC), JT 1996(9) SC 511, (1994) III LLJ256 SC, 1996(7) SCALE 753 , (1996) 11 SCC 365 and Balo Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1997SC 2678, 1997(2) BLJR1007, 1997CriLJ 339S, 1997(2) Crimes 38 (SC), JT 1997 (5) SC 117, 1997 (3) SCALE 729 , (1997) 5 SCC 360 , [1997] 3 SCR 1071 may be referred to. 17. In State of U.P. vs. Hakim Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184 , (1980) 3 SCC 55 it was been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court hat law does not requires 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. 18. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P. (1995 SCC (Cr.) 160), has held that testimony of a solitary witness can be acted upon, if entirely reliance and corroboration is required only in case of doubt or suspicion. 19. 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 weight 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 vs. State of Punjab (1991(2) Crimes Vol.2 (SC) 191) may be referred to. 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 vs. State of Punjab (1991(2) Crimes Vol.2 (SC) 191) may be referred to. 20. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in Sadhu Ram & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 SCC (Cr. 100) has held that conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration. The testimony of the witness must be one, which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witness. 21. Thus, it can be concluded that: - .(1) Asa general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweigh 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 is a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes. 22. Keeping the above principles in mind, the statement of sole eye witness P.W.3 Bhagi Ram has to be examined. 23. P.W. 3 Bhagi Ram in his statement recorded in the Court has confirmed the contents of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) which was given by him on 27.1998 to P.W.9 Shagan Lal. 22. Keeping the above principles in mind, the statement of sole eye witness P.W.3 Bhagi Ram has to be examined. 23. P.W. 3 Bhagi Ram in his statement recorded in the Court has confirmed the contents of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) which was given by him on 27.1998 to P.W.9 Shagan Lal. In cross-examination, P.W.3 Bhagi Ram has admitted following facts: i) That there was dispute between his father (accused appellant) and the mother (deceased), but for what reason the dispute was, he could not say, however, the same was for last 2-3 years. ii) That before 2-3 months of the incident, the deceased had gone to her parents’ house and his grand-father Kheta Ram had brought her back. iii) That he carmot say that her mother was of loose character, but for that there was dispute between his father (accused appellant) and his mother (deceased). iv) it is true that in neighbour, there were fields of P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W. 6 Nayab Singh, but they were not in the field at the time of occurrence and no other neighbourer was also present. v) That after the incident, he went to meet his grand-father Khetaram after 1/2 hour and on the way he did not meet anybody and when he was coming back, police met him on the way. 24. In our opinion, from the cross-examination of statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram, it does not appear that his statement suffers from any basic infirmity so that no reliance could be placed on his statement. His statement is straightforward implicating the accused appellant and generally the sole eyewitness who is close relative as in the present case P.W. 3 Bhagi Ram is, does not implicate his father and mother in the crime, but here P.W.3 Bhagi Ram who is the son of the accused appellant has implicated him and this shows truthfulness of statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram. 25. 25. No doubt, P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh had stated in the cross-examination that P.W.3 Bhagi Ram met them and when they asked him as to who had murdered the deceased, he did not tell name of the accused appellant, but in our opinion, the statement of P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh would not render the statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram unreliable because they were witnesses of recovery memo Ex.P/8 by which simple soil and soil which was stained with human blood was recovered and P/9 by which jumper (Article 2) was recovered and Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/7). The argument of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that since they have not been declared hostile and therefore, their statements should have been accepted cannot be appreciated because of the simple reason that they were witnesses of Fard E.P/7, P/8 and P/9 and in cross-examination they have stated the fact that P.W.3 Bhagi Ram did not tell the name of the assailant and meaning thereby that they have improved their version in cross-examination and actually this type of statement was not given by P.W.3 Bhagi Ram to them and the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge has considered this aspect in his impugned Judgment and this the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that reliance should have been placed on the statements of P.W.5 Wajir Singh and P.W.6 Nayab Singh stands rejected. 26. So far as the fact that the accused gave information (Ex.P/14) about recovery of Kassi (Article 1) is concerned, for that statement of P. W.9 Shagan Lal may be referred to who had stated that the accused appellant gave information (Ex.P/14) on 27.1998 to him and the same was recorded by him in Fard Ex.P/14 and he has further stated that in consequence of that information, he got recovered blood stained kassi (Article 1) from his filed in presence of P.W.4 Arjan Ram and Mangla ram (Mangla Ram was not produced by the prosecution). P.W.4 Arjan Ram has clearly corroborated the statement of P.W.9 Shagan lal on the point of recovery of Kassi (Article 1) through Fard Ex.P/15 at the instance of accused appellant and he has also shown presence of another witness Mangla Ram. Merely because P.W.4 Arjun Ram happens to the relative of the deceased, recovery of kassi (Article 1) cannot be rendered illegal. Merely because P.W.4 Arjun Ram happens to the relative of the deceased, recovery of kassi (Article 1) cannot be rendered illegal. Since in the present case, the accused appellant had made disclosure statement to the police while he was in custody and in pursuance of that kassi (Article 1) was recovered, the disclosure statement should be regarded as true and worthy of credence and if one witness of recovery was not examined and other witness happens to be relative of the deceased, it would be of no consequence. Therefore, the findings of the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge in that respect are liable to be confirmed one and the argument of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that no reliance should have been placed on the recovery of Kassi (Article 1) stands rejected. 27. That the learned Trial Judge has further sought corroboration from the blood stained kassi (Article 1) recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. In our opinion when a bloodstained spear is discovered, it becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment, namely, that the appellant who gave information leading to its discovery was the person who concealed it. 28. In thepresent case, the fact that accused gave information about concealment of Kassi (Article 1) to P.W.9 Shagan Lal in the shape of Ex.P/14 is proved and in consequence of that information kassi was recovered from the field of the accused appellant and therefore, this recovery is incriminating as well as corroborative piece of evidence against the accused appellant. Apart from this Kassi (Article 1) which was recovered at the instance of accused appellant was stained with human blood and same was of “A” group as is evident from FSL report Ex.P/17 and the same group was also found on jumper (Article 2) as well as on the soil recovered though Fard Ex.P/8 and therefore, all these facts connect the accused appellant with the commission of crime and hence it can be held that recovery of blood stained soil and Kassi (Article 1) can be used to corroborate the prosecution evidence against the accused appellant and this, statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram gets corroboration from the above facts. NO MOTIVE 29. NO MOTIVE 29. Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore, motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act, but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the time, it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with, but it has to be remembered that the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilty of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of crime. For that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Babri vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 , 1994 (2) BLJR1 147, 1994 CriLJ 3271, JT 1994 (4) SC 309, 1994(3) SCALE 197 , 1995 Supp(1) SCC 8O, [1994 ]Suppl SCR 483 may be referred to. 30. The prosecution is not bound to prove motive f any offence in a criminal case, in as much as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the Court has to consider it and seen whether it is adequate. For that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021 , 1981 CriLJ 714, 1981 (1) SCALE 761 , (1981) 2 SCC 300 , [1981]3 SCR1 maybe seen. 3.31. The motive gets locked up into the mind of the makers and it is difficult to fathom it. For that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021 , 1981 CriLJ 714, 1981 (1) SCALE 761 , (1981) 2 SCC 300 , [1981]3 SCR1 maybe seen. 3.31. The motive gets locked up into the mind of the makers and it is difficult to fathom it. It motive is proved, that would supply a chain of links but absence thereof is not a ground to reject the prosecution case For that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780 , 1997 CriLJ 3397, 1997 (2) Crimes 82 (SC), (1997) 3 GLR2245, JT 1997 (6) SC 236, 1997 (4) SCALE 724 , (1997) 6 SCC 514 , [1997 ]Supp2 SCR234, may be seen. 4.32. It is not a sine qua non for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonable doubt, a conviction may well be based on it. For that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala, AIR1981 SC 1237, 1981 (Supp)SCC 31 maybe seen. 5.33. It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes, the motive is clear and can be proved; sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If , however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. For the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Molu vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 , 1976 CriLJ 1895, (1976) 4 SCC 362 maybe seen. 6.34. Where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive losses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. 6.34. Where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive losses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as the Court should ascertain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question. For that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ot Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1994 SC 2585 , 1995 CriLJ 470, 1994 (3) Crimes 181(SC), JT 1994(5) SC 264, 1994(3) SCALE 806 , 1994 Supp(3) SCC 367, [1994] Supp 2 SCR 740 maybe seen. 1.35. In the present case P.W.3 Bhagi Ram, who is author of Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4) which was given by him on 27.98 to P.W.9 Shagan Lal and in that Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/4), he had stated that relations between his mother (deceased) and his father (accused appellant) were not cordial for some time and in the Court statement, he has further stated that the deceased had gone to her father’s house because of uncordial relation with his father (accused appellant) and thereafter his grand-father Kheta Ram brought her back and he had further stated that he cannot say that relations were constrained because of loose character of his mother, meaning thereby that he had not categorically denied that fact. P.W. 9 Shagan Lal who is 10 has himself admitted in cross examination that during investigation, the fact the character of the deceased was not found good came to his knowledge. 2.36. Sincein the present case, there is direct evidence of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram, therefore, the fact of proving the motive on the part of prosecution is not as strong as it should have been in a case based on circumstantial evidence. 2.36. Sincein the present case, there is direct evidence of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram, therefore, the fact of proving the motive on the part of prosecution is not as strong as it should have been in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Apart from this there appears to be clear motive on the part of the accused appellant as there is evidence that the deceased was not a lady of good character and therefore, the possibility that the accused appellant murdered his wife because of that fact cannot be ruled out and hence motive has played a vital role in the present case and thus, the findings of the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be confirmed one. 3.37. Not only this, in this case statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram further gets corroboration from the medical evidence which is found in the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Chandra Bhan who conducted post mortem of body of deceased on 27.98 and her post mortem report is Ex.P/11 which reveals that the deceased received three injuries by sharp edged weapon and in this case Kassi (Article 1) was recovered at the instance of accused appellant and the Kassi (Article 1) which was recovered at the instance of accused appellant was sharp edged weapon and thus, statement of P.W.3 Bhagi Ram further gets corroboration from the medical evidence. 4.38. So far as argument of the learned Counsel for the accused appellant that evidence of extra-judicial confession which is found in the statement of P.W.8 Murti Devi is very weak evidence is concerned, the same is not being discussed as there is ample ample evidence against the accused appellant implicating him with the murder of deceased apart from the evidence of extra-judicial confession. 39. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we have no reason to dissent with the findings arrived at by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge and thus, conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be confirmed one. FINDINGS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 5.40. 39. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we have no reason to dissent with the findings arrived at by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge and thus, conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be confirmed one. FINDINGS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE 5.40. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad vs. Pratap Narain, AIR 1951 SC 120 , [1950] 1 SCR 781, has observed that when the question for consideration is one of the fact, the decision which depends upon the appreciation of oral evidence, the appellate Court has got to bear in mind that it has not the advantage which the trial Court had of having witnesses before him and of observing the manner in which they deposed in Court. This certain does not mena that when an appeal lies on facts, the Appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Judge. The rule is when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses then unless there is special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped trial Judge’s Notice and there is sufficient balance of improbability to displace the opinion as to where the credibility lies, appellate Court should not disturb the findings of fact by the Trial Judge. 6.41. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Jagdomlal vs. Southern Indian Education Centre, AIR 1988 SC 103 , JT 1987(4) SC 484, 1987(2) SCALE 925 1988(Supp)SCC 144, [1988] 1 SCR 722, has held that so far as appreciation of oral testimony is concerned by the appellate Court, there arc two views. One view is that the Court of appeal has undoubted duty to review the recorded evidence and to draw its own inference and conclusion. The other view is that the Court of appeal must attach due weight to the opinion of the trial Judge who had the adva