Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal by three accused persons is under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore in Sessions Case No. 10/2001 (Old No. 36/99) -State vs. Ravia & Ors., dated 23.07.2001 by which he convicted each of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that PW. 9 Vaga Ram submitted a written report Exhibit P/18 at the place of incident before PW. 13 Labu Ram, SHO, Police Station, Ahore. It was stated in the report that in the evening of 18.1999 at about 7 PM his son Kalu, aged 28 years was taken by Vena Ram accused from his house. Both of them were followed by Ravia @ Rava, Tagia and Bhana Ram (juvenile offender). When Kalu (since deceased, hereafter referred to as the deceased) did not return uptill 11-12 PM, he alongwith his wife PW. 10 Smt. Santoki made search of his whereabouts. When PW. 9 reached at his well situated in his agricultural field, he saw in the light of a big torch that accused persons Vena Ram, Rava, Tagia and Bhana had killed his son Kaluram. Accused persons namely Vena, Rava, Tagia and Bhana were having respectively in their hands kulhari, kunth and lathis. Kaluram had sustained two deep injuries on his head and several others on his person. Accused persons had enmity in relation to a passage from the field of PW. 9. All the accused persons with their respective weapons inflicted injuries and as a result of the injuries Kalu Ram died. This written report received by PW. 13 Labhu Ram was taken by PW. 12 Bhera Ram to the Police Station where Criminal Case No. 190/1999 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC by PW. 14 Sanowar Khan, Head Constable. Thereafter, the matter was handed over to PW. 13 Labhu Ram for investigation. 3. During the course of investigation, site inspection was made and Memo Exhibit P/1 was prepared. Site Plan Exhibit P/2 was also made. 14 Sanowar Khan, Head Constable. Thereafter, the matter was handed over to PW. 13 Labhu Ram for investigation. 3. During the course of investigation, site inspection was made and Memo Exhibit P/1 was prepared. Site Plan Exhibit P/2 was also made. Control soil and the blood smeared soil was taken by the police and sealed at the spot. The dead body was inspected and a memo thereof Exhibit P/3 was prepared. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased Vaga Ram through Exhibit P/4. The clothes stained with blood were taken by the police through Exhibit P/5. Accused persons were arrested through memos Exhibit P/11 to P/13. The information furnished by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW. 13 Labhu Ram in Exhibit P/22 to P/24. The accused persons got recovered their respective weapons in presence of witnesses through memos Exhibit P/8, P/9 and P/14. The control soil and the blood smeared soil alongwith the weapon of the offence used by the accused persons during the course of incident and the blood-stained clothes duly sealed were sent to FSL, Jodhpur. The FSL report in relation to above articles is Exhibit P/25. After completion of investigation, a challan under Section 302/34 of the IPC was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore on 29.09.1999. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where it was registered on 210.1999. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 302/34 of the IPC against the accused persons. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW. 1 Jog Singh. He is a witness of memos of recoveries etc. and is said to be an eye witness. This witness has been declared hostile. The witness has stated that he heard about some compromise between the parties as they are related to each other. PW. 2 Bhuraji is a witness in relation to Exs. P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 & P/5, which are the memos respectively of site inspection, site plan, sample and control soil, blood smeared soil, Fard Surat Hall Lash, handing over the dead body of the deceased to father of the deceased and the blood stained clothes of the deceased. PW. PW. 2 Bhuraji is a witness in relation to Exs. P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 & P/5, which are the memos respectively of site inspection, site plan, sample and control soil, blood smeared soil, Fard Surat Hall Lash, handing over the dead body of the deceased to father of the deceased and the blood stained clothes of the deceased. PW. 3 Manohar Singh is the witness in relation to Exhibit P/7, P/8 and P/9 which are respectively; Recovery Memo of lathi on the information of Bhana Ram, Recovery Memo of Iron Kunt at the instance of accused Rawa, and Recovery Memo of Lathi at the instance of accused Taga Ram. The witness has been declared hostile at the request of the prosecution but the witness has admitted their signatures on the recovery memos. PW. 4 is Gordhan Singh. He is also a witness of Recovery Memos Exhibits P/7, P/8 & P/9. This witness has also been declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. The witness has stated that his thumb impressions were taken on papers by the police. PW. 5 is Mohna Lal. This witness is in relation to Recovery Memo Exhibit P/14 which was in relation to an axe which was got recovered by the accused Bhana Ram. This witness has also been declared hostile. PW. 6 Pabu Singh is also a witness in relation to Recovery Memo of Kulhari Exhibit P/14. This witness has not supported the version of the prosecution and was declared hostile. PW. 7 Parbat Singh is a police witness and at the relevant time was posted in the S.P. Office, Jalore and was looking after the matters relating to FSL testing. The witness has stated that 7 sealed packets were received by him on 24.08.1999, he prepared forwarding letter in the name of Director, FSL which was signed by S.P. Jalore and thereafter the sealed packets alongwith forwarding letter were handed over to Narayan Singh in sealed condition for depositing the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur. The witness has proved Exhibit P/15 the forwarding letter prepared by him for sending the articles to the FSL. The receipt Exhibit P/16 was obtained by him in relation to deposit of sealed articles of the case. The original was sent to Police Station, Ahore. PW. 8 is Dr. Ghanshyam Tripathi. He has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased while posted as Jr. The receipt Exhibit P/16 was obtained by him in relation to deposit of sealed articles of the case. The original was sent to Police Station, Ahore. PW. 8 is Dr. Ghanshyam Tripathi. He has conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased while posted as Jr. Specialist, Primary Health Centre, Ahore on 15.08.1999 and has proved Exhibit P/17 Postmortem Report. PW. 9 is Vaga Ram, who is father of the deceased and has narrated the prosecution version. PW. 10 Smt. Santoki is the mother of deceased. She is also an eye witness and has narrated the version of the prosecution. PW. 11 is Narayan Singh Constable, who at the relevant time was posted in Police Station Ahore. This witness took 7 sealed packets of the case to the S.P. Office, Jalore and from there obtained a forwarding letter on 24.08.1999 and deposited the sealed articles of the case in sealed condition in the FSL, Jodhpur and obtained receipt Exhibit P/16. PW. 12 is Bhera Ram. This witness on 15.08.1999 was posted as Constable in the Police Station, Ahore. This witness has stated that the report Exhibit P/18 was presented by Vaga Ram at the spot, he took the report to the Police Station where Head Constable Sanowar Khan registered Criminal Case No. 190/1999 under Section 302/34 IPC. PW. 13 is Labhu Ram, who has conducted investigation in the matter and prepared memos in relation to information of the accused persons and in relation to the recoveries effected in pursuance to the information furnished by the accused persons and after completion of investigation filed challan in the CJM Court. PW. 14 is Sanowar Khan, who on 15.08.1999 was posted as Head Constable in the Police Station. This witness has registered the FIR Exhibit P/18 in the police station. The witness has also proved Parcha Exhibit P/19 made on the basis of Exhibit P/18. This witness was also the Malkhana Incharge. He kept the sealed articles in the Malkhana in the sealed condition after making relevant entries in the Malkhana register. This witness has proved the entries of Malkhana Register Exhibit P/27 & 28. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement under Section 313 CrPC accused persons denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they have falsely been implicated in the case and no recovery was got effected by them to the police. This witness has proved the entries of Malkhana Register Exhibit P/27 & 28. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement under Section 313 CrPC accused persons denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that they have falsely been implicated in the case and no recovery was got effected by them to the police. At the stage of defence evidence, the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore. The trial Court recorded the statement of DW1 Otiya @ Ota Ram. Prosecution tendered 28 documents in evidence and in defence Exhibit D/1 was got exhibited. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, through his Judgment and order dated 23.07.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated hereinabove. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the evidence and material available on record. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated and scanned the evidence as most of the witnesses of the prosecution did not support the prosecution version. It has next been contended that the conviction having been recorded solely on the basis of evidence of PW. 9 Vaga Ram and PW. 10 Santoki is not liable to be sustained for the reason that the above witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence also does not inspire confidence. According to the learned counsel, it was highly impossible for PW. 9 Waga Ram and PW. 10 Santoki to have seen the accused persons inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. It has further been contended that the defence evidence clearly indicates that in fact PW. 9 and PW. 10 have not witnessed the incident. In the last, it has been contended that the recoveries in the in case cannot be presumed to have been made at the instance of accused persons because all the witnesses in relation to the recoveries have turned hostile. Therefore, the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. .8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no reason why PW. 9 and PW. 10 will tell a lie and leave the actual culprits and involve accused persons particularly in the circumstances when accused persons are also relatives of the witnesses. Therefore, the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges levelled against them. .8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no reason why PW. 9 and PW. 10 will tell a lie and leave the actual culprits and involve accused persons particularly in the circumstances when accused persons are also relatives of the witnesses. It has next been contended that merely by some witnesses having been declared hostile in relation to some memos of recovery it cannot be presumed that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be relied upon particularly when the witnesses of recoveries have admitted their signatures on the memos. The learned Public Prosecutor in the last submitted that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, the same is required to be confirmed by this Court. .9. We have considered the above submissions made before us by both sides. .10. Before proceeding further, medical evidence in this case is to be examined, which is found in the statement of PW. 8 Dr. Ghanshyam Tripathi. He has stated in his statement before the Court that on 18.1999 he was posted as Junior Specialist in Primary Health Centre, Ahore. On that day, on police requisition, he conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased Kalu Ram in the morning at about 11.30 AM. The dead body was identified by the father of the deceased. The following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. 1.Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep - over upper part of forehead (near hair line) slightly on left side. 2.Lacerated wound (L shaped) 6 cm x 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm over occipital region. The following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. 1.Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep - over upper part of forehead (near hair line) slightly on left side. 2.Lacerated wound (L shaped) 6 cm x 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm over occipital region. 3.Swelling 5 cm x 5 cm over right parital region 4.Abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on right cheek 5.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on left arm 6.Bruise 5 cm x 2 cm on left arm 7.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on left part of upper chest 8.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on front of chest 9.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on front of chest 10.Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on lower part of left sided chest 11.Bruise 2 cm x 2 cm on right arm 12.Bruise 2 cm x 2 cm on right arm 13.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on right forearm 14.Abrasion 4 cm x 1.0 cm on right elbow 15.Multiple abrasion 1 to 3 cm x 0.5 cm to 1 cm on lower part of right forearm and right hand dorsal 16.Multiple Abrasion 1 to 3 cm x 0.5 cm to 2 cm on lower part of left forearm and dorsum of left hand 17.Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on back vertically 18.Bruise 8 cm x 2 cm on back horizontally 19.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on left scapular region 20.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on left thigh in front 21.Bruise 5 cm x 2 cm on left thigh in front 22.Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on left thigh laterally 23.Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on right thigh in front 24. Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on right thigh laterally 25. Multiple abrasion: 1 to 3 cm x 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm over skin of right tibia 26. Multiple abrasion: 1 to 3 cm x 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm over skin of left tibia 27. Lacerated Wound : 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right skin of tibia centrally 28. Lacerated Wound : 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left skin of tibia centrally Internal injuries: 1. Large extradural and subdural haematoma over right parietal region, membranes raptured 2. Depressed fracture of right parietal bone 3. Lacerated Wound : 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right skin of tibia centrally 28. Lacerated Wound : 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left skin of tibia centrally Internal injuries: 1. Large extradural and subdural haematoma over right parietal region, membranes raptured 2. Depressed fracture of right parietal bone 3. large extradural and subdural haematoma over frontal bone mainly on left side, membranes raptured 4. Fracture of frontal bone. All the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. In the evidence of this witness, the cause of death was comma due to head injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The witness has proved postmortem report Exhibit P/17 which contains his signatures. In view of the statement of PW. 8 Dr. Ghanshyam Tripathi, it is amply proved that the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante mortem in nature and the deceased died due to head injuries and the death of the deceased was homicidal and not a natural one. 11. Now we propose to examine the evidence of eye witnesses in light of submissions made before us. 12. Before we scrutinize the evidence of the eye witnesses, it is to be seen as to what are the principles which govern the matters of appreciating testimony of a single witness and close relative witnesses. 13. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act prescribes that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. It is now well settled position of law that “evidence is to be weighed and not counted”. The Apex Court in the case of Vadivalu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , has observed that the Court is concerned with the guilty and not with the quality of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. In the case of Hadmana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (4) RLW 2489 (Raj), it has been observed that Section 134 of the 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 by the testimony has either to be accepted or rejected. The matter thus depends upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of evidence even of a single witness by the 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 established by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of the accused may be established by the testimony of a single witness. In yet another decision in the State of U.P. vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184 , it has been held by the Honble 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 are required to prove a fact. 14. An argument has been raised before us that the witnesses are interested witnesses as they are father and mother of the deceased and their evidence suffers from contradictions, the evidence is required to be rejected and no conviction can be based upon their testimony. The law which has developed on the point of close relatives evidence clearly indicates that their evidence can be relied upon provided it inspires confidence. 15. The Honble Supreme Court in Dilip Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 , has observed that a witness is normally to be considered independent witness whether he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means that unless the witness has the cause; such an enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely, ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the last culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. In Masalti vs. State of U .P., AIR 1965 SC 202 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed: “. . .But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witness. . . . Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted. . . . . Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted. . .” In Lehna vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) SCC 76 , also their Lordships been held that relations by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the testimony of the witnesses. 16. It may be stated here that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to examine the evidence of a close relative or while considering material contradictions the evidence of the witness should be read as a whole. If after going through the evidence led by the prosecution as a whole, the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence is reliable and trustworthy then in that event the single testimony of an eye witness is sufficient to hold guilty. Minor discrepancies of trivial nature not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking witnesses torn out of context here and there from the evidence attaching important to some technical issue committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 17. Informing ourselves of the above important principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court and the High Court, we propose to scrutinize the evidence of eye witnesses who are also the close relatives of the deceased in the present matter. 18. PW . 9 Vaga Ram is the father of the deceased. This witness has stated that on the day of the incident in the evening at about 7 AM Vena Ram accused had come to his house and he also had tea there. The witness has further stated that his son Kalu Ram went alongwith accused and they were followed by other accused persons. Since the deceased did not turn up for quite some time, as such he alongwith his wife Santoki (PW . 10) made search about the whereabouts of the deceased and when they reached at about 11 or 12 PM in the night at their well. They found accused persons armed with Kulhari, Kunt and lathis and inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. The witness has further stated that he saw the incident in the light of a big torch. The accused persons are his relatives also. They found accused persons armed with Kulhari, Kunt and lathis and inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. The witness has further stated that he saw the incident in the light of a big torch. The accused persons are his relatives also. The witness has lodged Exhibit P/18 FIR and further the witness has stated that there was some dispute in relation to a way through his field. The fields of accused persons and his fields are adjacent to each other. In the cross-examination, stress was in relation to lodging of the FIR by PW . 1 Joga Singh who had turned hostile and he stated that he does not know how to write, therefore the argument was that the very basis of prosecution case was not proved and a concocted story has been cooked up. 19. It is true that an FIR is not the substantive piece of evidence and is only an information of crime given to the police. The witness in the cross-examination has clearly stated that some other person has written the FIR, since the accused persons were known to the witnesses and were also the relatives of the accused persons, therefore, there appears to be no reason to distrust the testimony of this witness merely on the ground that he was close relative of the deceased as he was father of the deceased. 20. PW . 10 Santoki is the mother of the deceased. She has supported the version of PW . 9 in its totality. She has also narrated the manner in which the incident had taken place. Lengthy cross-examination has been there but nothing has been extracted to disprove the fact that either the witness is telling a lie or she has not seen the incident. 21. After carefully examining the evidence of above two eye witnesses coupled with the evidence of recovery and also taking into consideration the FSL Report Exhibit P/25, we are of the opinion that merely because certain discrepancies or minor contradictions, the evidence of the above witnesses cannot be rejected completely. There appears no reason why simply because of dispute regarding way with the accused, the above witnesses will involve the accused persons in the present matter and leave the actual culprits who were responsible for the crime. 22. We have also carefully examined the defence theory in the present matter. DW. There appears no reason why simply because of dispute regarding way with the accused, the above witnesses will involve the accused persons in the present matter and leave the actual culprits who were responsible for the crime. 22. We have also carefully examined the defence theory in the present matter. DW. 1 Otia alias Ota Ram had stated in his statement that his house is adjacent to the house of PW. 9 Vaga Ram and they are in distant relation also. The witness has stated that about a year back before recording of his statement in the Court, at about 3 OClock in the mid night the wife of Vaga Ram (PW. 9) - Smt. Santoki (PW. 10) called him out of the house and informed him that her son Kalu Ram has been killed and she requested to accompany her upto the well where the dead body was lying. The witness has further stated that PW. 10 Santoki also informed him that she alongwith her husband went to the well and there they saw the dead body of deceased Kalu Ram. Her husband Vaga Ram was sitting there near the dead body. The witness has further stated that he went at the spot with other neighbours and saw that dead body of Kalu Ram was lying there. The witness has further stated that PW. 10 Mst. Santoki and Hari Ram left the place saying this that they were going to inform the police about the incident. 23. It shall be relevant to notice here that either from PW . 9 Vaga Ram or PW . 10 Santoki no question has been asked in the cross examination that Santoki (PW . 10) in the midnight called DW . 1 Ota Ram from his house and said that deceased Kalu Ram was lying dead near the well of PW . 9 Vaga Ram. This has also not been asked from the above witnesses that Smt. Santoki had infact stated that they do not know as to who had killed deceased Kalu Ram. In view of above and also after taking into consideration the FSL Report Exhibit P/25 wherein the lathi recovered at the instance of accused Taga Ram was shown to have contained human blood of O Group and the same blood group was found to have been stated on the clothes of the deceased. In view of above and also after taking into consideration the FSL Report Exhibit P/25 wherein the lathi recovered at the instance of accused Taga Ram was shown to have contained human blood of O Group and the same blood group was found to have been stated on the clothes of the deceased. Had this witness would have been of truth, then he could have conveyed very well to the police or other persons but nothing to that sort has come on record. 24. In view of the evidence adduced by prosecution, as discussed hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the defence theory that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. The defence theory appears to us to be an afterthought and we find ourselves unable to accept it. 25. We do not find any infirmity in the Judgment of the learned trial Judge. 26. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we dismiss the appeal and maintain the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.