JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.7.03 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 110 (S)/97. 2. Heard Mr. C.R. De, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.C. Biswas, for the Appellants and Mr. P.K. Musahari, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. On 18.3.90, at about 1.30 PM, Md. Abdul Salam, P.W.-5 lodged a written FIR, Ext. 2, before the O.C., Misamari P.S. to the effect that on that day, at about 7.30 AM, while his elder brother, Md. Dulal Shiekh, was having tea at the Chand Mian Tea Stall at Kala Kuchi Centre, the accused persons, named in the said FIR, attacked him and when Dulal Shiekh ran towards the field, the accused persons chased him and thereafter hacked him with dao on the neck, leg and other positions on the body, which has resulted in instantaneous death of Md. Dulal Shiekh. Police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused persons., The trial Court vide order dated 12.3.98 framed charge against the two accused Appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. During trial prosecution examined, as many, as, 8 (eight) witnesses and vide the impugned judgment the two accused Appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to further imprisonment for one month Hence, the present appeal. 4. P.W.-1, Md. Abdul Sattar has deposed that on the date of occurrence while he was sitting in the Chawk he saw 7/8 persons armed with dao, spear came to the said Chawk, where the deceased dulal Sheikh was sitting and they were trying to attack him where upon Dulal Shiek ran through field and the above persons chased Dulal Shiekh. P.W.-1 could recognize two persons in the group, namely, Anju and Asar, who are not before us. P.W.-2 is Anr. witness, who has supported the statement of P.W.-1 but this witness out of fear fled the scene and he has not recognized anyone Abdul Kalam Choudhury, P.W.-3 came to the place of occurrence on hearing about the news and he found that deceased Dulal Shiekh lying dead in the nearby field and he was informed that the accused Appellant Babar Ali, Nur Islam, and a couple of Kachari youth have killed the deceased. Abdul Hussain, P.W.-4 is Anr. Abdul Hussain, P.W.-4 is Anr. witness who came to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and he saw that the deceased being cut. This witness could recognize the accused Appellant Nur Islam and Babar Ali and one Faizal. He had seen the persons assaulting the deceased. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. It seems that this witness has made certain development in his evidence before the Court from his earlier evidence under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and the conduct was brought on record as required under the law. 5. P.W.-5 is the informant of the case and his evidence will be considered at later stage. P.W.-7 is Dr. S. Bora, who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found as follows: 1. Incised wound over the left ear and brain matter exposed. 2. Incised wound on parietal region of skull deep, 3" length present. 3. Incised wound 4" bone deep on left scapular region present. 4. Incised wound on left forearm lateral aspect upper 3rd present 3" long and bone deep. 5. Cut injury on left 1st to 3rd finger of hand in palm aspect, bone deep. 6. Cut injury on left buttock just below iliac crest, 3" long muscle deep. 7. Penetrating injury 2" wide inn right hypochondria with rupture liver 8. Cut injury upper 3rd of right forearm 2" length muscle deep. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injury No. 1 and 7 are the fatal injury and these injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. The medical evidence has not been challenged. P.W.-6 and P.W.-8 are the two investigating Police Officers in this case. 7. From the oral and medical evidence on record we find that the incident of assault, as alleged by the prosecution, did take place on the date, time and place, stated by the prosecution and in the above incident Dulal Shekh sustained severe injuries on his person and he died as a result of the said injuries. The death of the deceased as such is not disputed and we concur with the finding of the trial Court that this is a case of homicide. 8. The death of the deceased as such is not disputed and we concur with the finding of the trial Court that this is a case of homicide. 8. The entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of P.W. 5, the informant of this case. This witness is the nephew of the deceased and he has deposed that on the day of occurrence his uncle Dulal Shekh has gone to Chand Mia Hotel and he also accompanied him. While they were there, some persons armed with sword, Lathi etc. entered into the said Hotel and Nur Islam gave a push with a lathi, whereupon Dulal Shiekh fled the scene. The Appellant Nur Islam followed him and hacked him from behind with a sword. Dulal Shiekh sustained cut injuries on his leg and he fell down where upon the accused Appellant hacked Dulal in the head. One Faizul also dealt a cut injury on the forehead and as a result of which Dulal Shiekh died at the spot. P.W.-5 thereafter lodged the FIR, Ext. 2 and Police made the investigation. This witness, P.W.-5 has been cross examined at length but the defence has failed to dislodge his testimony. We find that this witness has withstood his evidence very well and he has deposed as to what he had witnessed. The trial Court, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment, has relied on his testimony to bring home the charge against the two accused Appellant. The evidence of this witness stand corroborated by the other witnesses as regards the manner in which the incident took place. Although the other witnesses could not recognize or identify the actual assailants. Further, the oral testimony fully supported by the medical evidence as regrades the sit and nature of the injury and the weapon used. The doctor found as many as 8 cut injuries on the person of the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the admissibility and acceptability of the evidence of this witness on the ground that the statement of the witness was not recorded under Section 161Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigating police officer. The witness, P.W.-5 has deposed that the statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded. The Investigating Police Officer, however, submits that he had examined Abdul Salam, P.W.-5, but surprisingly the statement is not available in the case diary. The witness, P.W.-5 has deposed that the statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded. The Investigating Police Officer, however, submits that he had examined Abdul Salam, P.W.-5, but surprisingly the statement is not available in the case diary. Shri Biswas, learned Counsel for the Appellant placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 1936 has submitted that as P.W.-5 was not examined under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, and as the earlier statement was not available, his evidence is required to be thrown out of consideration and no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness., In Ram Lakhan Singh (supra), the Apex Court held: It is true that no enmity or grudge is suggested against this witness, but we find that this witness was not even examined by the police nor was he cited in the charge-sheet. In a grave charge like the present, it will not be proper to place reliance on a witness who never figured during the investigation and was not named in the chargesheet. The accused who are entitled to know his earlier version to the police are naturally deprived of an opportunity of effective cross-examination and it will be difficult to give any credence to a statement which was given for the first time in court after about a year of the occurrence. We cannot, therefore, agree that the High Court was right in accepting the evidence of this witness as lending assurance to the testimony of other witnesses on the basis of which alone perhaps the High Court felt unsafe to convict the accused. 10. We have gone through the above decision and find that the facts of the present case stand on a different footing. P.W.-5, Abudl Salam, is the informant of the case and the FIR, Ext.-2, was lodged by him and the entire investigation was started at his behest. Further, unlike Ram Lakhan Singh (Supra), P.W.-5 is not a stranger and the prosecution was not taken by surprise. P.W.-5 is a charge-sheeted witness and as a matter of fact his name appears at Sl. No. 1 of the Charge-sheet. Moreover, we find that no objection whatsoever was raised by the prosecution when the witness was examined before the Court. Further, unlike Ram Lakhan Singh (Supra), P.W.-5 is not a stranger and the prosecution was not taken by surprise. P.W.-5 is a charge-sheeted witness and as a matter of fact his name appears at Sl. No. 1 of the Charge-sheet. Moreover, we find that no objection whatsoever was raised by the prosecution when the witness was examined before the Court. Further, we find that although his earlier version under Section 161Code of Criminal Procedure is not available, the earliest version of the witness was reduced in writing in the form of FIR and that was available to the defence for the purpose of cross examination and bringing contradictions, if any, and we find that there was no obvious development from his earlier statement. 11. From the cross examination of the Investigating Police Officer' the defence has brought out that although the incident took place in broad day light at a busy centre, none of the witnesses were ready/willing to come and depose. The incident took place in the tea stall of Saikh Ahmed, but said Saikh Ahmed declined to be a witness. The other person who was present in the shop fled from the scene after the occurrence. Some of these persons have also deposed before the Court and P.W.-2 is one such witness, who inspite of being the relation of the deceased, fled the scene seeing the assault on the deceased. In the case of V. Thevar v. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 , The apex Court observed: There is Anr. danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints, which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of them first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution. 12. Thus, we find that P.W.-5 was the only eye witness, who was present at the place of occurrence and who has come forward to depose. He was not a stranger to the prosecution or to the defence as it was he who lodged the FIR. He was also present at the time of inquest. The Investigating Police Officer for the reasons best known to him did not record his statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in such a serious case of homicide. It may be a case of genuine mistake omission or it may be intentional but the question is if the Investigating Police Officer with some ulterior motive omits to record the statement of the solitary eye witness, does it mean that the entire prosecution should fail on that count? If such unbridled power is given to the investigating police officer some unsecuruplous Investigating Police Officer may play havoc. Offence of murder are categorized as serious offences and as per the police Mannual, investigation in such a case is required to be supervised by senior Police Officer. In the present case the eye witness statement was not recorded and even the supervising Police Officer, if any, could not detect the above defect. In the case of Karnal Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472 , the Apex Court considered the case of defective investigation and observed: Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In the case of Karnal Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472 , the Apex Court considered the case of defective investigation and observed: Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of effective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any Investigating Officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the 'Chaddi'. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slip shod and defective. 13. In a later case of State of U.P. v. Jagdeo 2002 AIR SCW 5330, the Apex Court reiterated its earlier decision in the following words: Coming to the aspect of the investigating being allegedly faulty, we would like to say that we do not agree with the view taken by High Court, we would rather like to say that assuming the investigation was faulty, for that alone the accused persons cannot be let off or acquitted. For the fault of the prosecution, the perpetrators of such a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot free. All the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and they attacked the members of the victims family who were totally unarmed and were sleeping at night in the open. The High Court has expressed a doubt about the FIR being lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution and the manner in which it is so stated by the prosecution. The question however is : is it sufficient to acquit all the persons? The trial Court had discussed all the elements leading to the brutal murder in this case and found them against the accused persons. Unfortunately, the High Court remained on the periphery and never attempted to grapple with the substance of the evidence on record. This peripheral approach of the High Court led to the impugned judgment of acquittal being passed. The trial Court had discussed all the elements leading to the brutal murder in this case and found them against the accused persons. Unfortunately, the High Court remained on the periphery and never attempted to grapple with the substance of the evidence on record. This peripheral approach of the High Court led to the impugned judgment of acquittal being passed. In the presence of such a strong evidence on record implicating the accused persons, things like alleged improper recording of time of lodging of FIR are not sufficient to dislodge the verdict of convictions passed by the Sessions Court. In our considered view the evidence of the eye-witnesses in the present case completely proves the prosecution case. The doubt thrown by the High Court on the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence is totally unacceptable. The impugned judgment of the High Court whereby all the accused persons have been acquitted is hereby set aside. These appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Sessions Court is hereby restored. The accused persons shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence as imposed on each of them by the Sessions Court. 14. In view of the above, we hold that for mere non-recording of the statement under Section 161Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Police officer, the evidence adduced by P.W. 5 before the Court cannot be thrown out. However, considering the above omission, we have analyzed the evidence of P.W.-5 and find that his testimony is true, reliable and trustworthy. His statement inspire confidence and as a matter of fact, there was earlier version in the form of FIR. We have no hesitation to hold that the testimony of P.W.-5 is wholly reliable. 15. In the result, we hold that the two accused Appellants before us are guilty of the offence of causing death of the deceased Dulal Shiekh. Considering the nature and number of injuries and the weapon used, and the manner in which the deceased was attacked, chased and assaulted, the intention to cause death is writ large. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.