Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-Convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment fined Rs. 1,000/-and sentenced to further undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof , the appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 27.08.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.04.2004, Radha Kishan (PW. 2) lodged a written report (Exhibit P/1) wherein he claimed that "on that date at about 11.00 AM , his wife, Manohari and his son, Govindram, went to village Kuchera, in order to buy grocery and household goods. His wife told him that while they were standing at the bus stop, a girl from village Bachwari, Vimala and Jagdish S/o Ram Narayan, took their son, Govindram, towards the Hanuman Mandir (temple). Since the son did not come back for about five minutes, his wife, Manohari, went and saw that Vimala, Jagdish and two other boys, whom she doesnt know, all four of these persons were assaulting Govindram. As soon as Manohari went near them, all four of them ran away. Govindram had fallen down by then. His wife called up some of their relatives and told them and him about the incident. According to him, all the four persons have killed his son." 3. On the basis of this report, a formal First Information Report (henceforth to be referred to as the FIR, for short), FIR No. 30/04 (Exhibit P/2) was chalked out for offence under Section 302/34, IPC against Jagdish and Vimala and against two other unknown persons. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet only against the appellant. Jagdish for offence under Section 302, IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, submitted thirty-four documents and produced twelve articles. On he other hand, the defense examined two witnesses and submitted three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide Judgment dated 27.08.2004, the learned Judge convicted the appellant as aforementioned. 4. During the course of trial the evidence which has emerged is that Govindram was about to get married. He and his mother, Manohari (PW. 3), left their village in the morning for the village Kuchera for shopping. While Manohari walked to village Kuchera, Govindram cycled. He told his mother, Manohari, to meet him at the bus station. 4. During the course of trial the evidence which has emerged is that Govindram was about to get married. He and his mother, Manohari (PW. 3), left their village in the morning for the village Kuchera for shopping. While Manohari walked to village Kuchera, Govindram cycled. He told his mother, Manohari, to meet him at the bus station. Once Manohari reached the bus station, she waited for her son to come. There she met Hariji Master, who inquired as to what brought her to the bus stand? She told him that she is waiting for her son. He told her that he just saw her son at a radio shop. Few minutes later Govindram also came. While she was sitting with some people, Govindram went with Vimala and one Chandrabhan, behind the Hanuman Temple. Jagdish, the appellant, followed them. Five minutes later, when she went there, she saw Jagdish assaulting Govindram with a knife. She shouted at him; when she went closer, Jagdish ran away after throwing the knife away. Because of her shouts, people gathered there. One Chotturam (PW. 1), her uncle-in-law, came there and sent Manohari with one Bastiram, a co-villager, to her village. She accompanied Bastiram in a jeep and reached her village. At her village, she told her husband, Radha Kishan (PW. 2), about the incident. He returned with Bastiram to village Kuchera and lodged the FIR alongwith Chotturam. 5. Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions before us: Firstly, the prosecution has changed its story. According to the written report (Exhibit P/1) and the FIR (Exhibit P/2) four persons were allegedly involved in the commission of the crime, namely Vimla, Jagdish, and two unknown persons. In the FIR although Jadish is named, yet no specific overt act has been assigned to him But, in their testimonies before the Court, PW. 1 Chotturam, PW. 2 Radha Kishan, and PW. 3 Manohari, have changed their stand. Before the Court, they have made Jagdish the sole culprit for the alleged crime. The three other culprits have been left out. Secondly, that the entire case is based on the sole testimony of Manohari (PW. 3). But, she is not a witness of sterling worth. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of her testimony. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Bhati, the Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. The three other culprits have been left out. Secondly, that the entire case is based on the sole testimony of Manohari (PW. 3). But, she is not a witness of sterling worth. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of her testimony. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Bhati, the Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.R. Choudhary, the learned Counsel for the complainant, have argued that the FIR was not lodged by an eye-witness, but by Radha Kishan, the father of the deceased. Secondly, Jagdish is mentioned in the FIR. In the " police Karwahi" the fact that Jagdish and others assaulted the deceased with knife is clearly mentioned. Moreover, according to the learned Counsels, Manohari is a trustworthy witness. Her presence is natural. She had joined Govindram at the bus stand. PW. 1, Chotturam, testifies to her presence at the scene of the crime. Her testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination. Hence, conviction can be based on the testimony of the sole eye-witness. The learned Counsels have, therefore, supported the impugned Judgment . 7. We have heard all the three Counsels and have perused the impugned Judgment and have critically examined the record before us. 8. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal law that a FIR is not supposed to be encyclopedic in its content. The purpose of the FIR is not to record the occurrence in minute detail the purpose is to set the criminal machinery into motion. The FIR, as its name suggests, merely informs the Police about the commission of cognizable offence by known or unknown persons. It is an information to the police to commence the investigation into a cognizable offence. Even if some details are left out, the omission is not fatal to the prosecution. Since it is the foundation of the prosecution story, the gist of the prosecution story should exist in the FIR, even if it is devoid of details. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh, 1998 (3) SCC 561 , the Apex Court has held that "the purpose of recording FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to set the investigating agency in motion of prosecuting the persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh, 1998 (3) SCC 561 , the Apex Court has held that "the purpose of recording FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to set the investigating agency in motion of prosecuting the persons responsible for the cognizable offence mentioned in the FIR. Though the FIR should not be too sketchy or vague, yet non-mentioning of the details and meticulous is particulars no ground to reject the case of the prosecution." 9. In the present case, the appellants name has been mentioned as one of the assailants. In the " police karwahi" clearly it has been mentioned that Jagdish and others assaulted the deceased with a knife. Thus, his presence, his assaulting the deceased with a knife has been alleged. Hence, the name of the culprit, the weapon used, the commission of a cognizable offence has been given. Therefore, the FIR contains the crux of the prosecution story. It has sufficient details for the building up to the prosecution case. Merely because the FIR does not assert in explicit details the fact of the appellant knifing the deceased, would not make the prosecution case doubtful. 10. While appreciating the FIR, one also has to remember that Radha Kishan, who was not an eye-witness, lodged the FIR. He is the father of the deceased who had just been informed by his hysterical wife that they have lost their only son, whose wedding they were planning to celebrate twenty days after. One can imagine the shock and dismay of the parents who have suddenly lost their young son. The parents are illiterate, rustic villagers who would neither understand the importance of the FIR, nor the importance of a detailed FIR. They have narrated their woes in a gist form. To expect a detailed and an explicit FIR immediately after the incident is to ignore human nature. In appreciating evidence, the Court can neither be too pedantic, nor too impractical. The factors of human psychology, the background of the witness, their life-style, their cultural milieu has to be kept in mind while appreciating evidence. 11. Mr. Mehta has made much about the existence of "four persons" as the assailants in the FIR. He has also argued that initially the police had registered the case for offences under Section 302/34, IPC. The factors of human psychology, the background of the witness, their life-style, their cultural milieu has to be kept in mind while appreciating evidence. 11. Mr. Mehta has made much about the existence of "four persons" as the assailants in the FIR. He has also argued that initially the police had registered the case for offences under Section 302/34, IPC. According to him, the appellant has been singled out during the investigation and the trial. The entire murder has been hosted upon him, while letting the other three assailants go scot-free. 12. PW 1, Chotturam, in his examination-in-chief tells us that he met Manohari at the bus station. He also talked to her. He was at the bus station when he heard a hue and cry. He went to the scene of the crime and saw Manohari wailing over the dead body of her son. According to him, she told him that "Jagdish had killed her son." He also saw the knife near the dead body. He also noticed the injuries sustained by the deceased. It is he who told Bastiram to take Manohari back to their village and to fetch Radha Kishan, the father of the deceased. Thus, he testifies to Manoharis presence, to the first words spoken by her at the scene of the crime. According to her statement only Jagdish had killed her son. In her statement to Chotturam she does not mention the involvement of any other person in killing her son. In fact, if others were involved, then she would have said so at the very first instance. 14. Similarly, Manohari (PW . 3) tells us that when she went looking for her son, whom she had seen going with Vimla and Chandrabhan, she saw Jagdish hitting her son with a knife on his neck. In her cross-examination, she denies the fact that she told her husband that Jagdish and two other school children assaulted Govindram. Hence, even according to the sole eye-witness only Jagdish had hit the deceased with a knife. 15. The omission of this fact in the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she denies the fact that she told her husband that Jagdish and two other school children assaulted Govindram. Hence, even according to the sole eye-witness only Jagdish had hit the deceased with a knife. 15. The omission of this fact in the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution. In the case of Rattan Singh vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, 1997 (4) SCC 161 , the Honble Supreme Court has held, "Criminal Courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the first information statement, since such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened, nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes first information to authorities might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. Quite often the Police Officer, who takes down the first information, would record what the informant conveys to him without resorting to any elicitatory exercise. It is voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation which usually goes into such statement. So any omission therein has to be considered alongwith the other evidence to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all." 16. Radha Kishan (PW. 2) also says his examination-in-chief that according to Manohari, Jagdish had assaulted Govindram with a knife. In his cross-examination, he denies the suggestion that Manohari did not tell him about this fact. Although in Exhibit P/1 and Exhibit P/2 he has mentioned the fact that two other persons were there at the time of the assault, but the fact remains that he was not an eye-witness. Manohari had informed him that Vimla and Chandrabhan and Govindram had gone behind the temple Jagdish had gone there a little later. Considering the disturbed psyche of the complainant at the time of lodging of FIR, it is conceivable that he might have confused the facts. He has introduced the presence of "two other persons" without Manohari telling him so. However, such exaggeration in the FIR, would not be fatal to the prosecutory story. Considering the disturbed psyche of the complainant at the time of lodging of FIR, it is conceivable that he might have confused the facts. He has introduced the presence of "two other persons" without Manohari telling him so. However, such exaggeration in the FIR, would not be fatal to the prosecutory story. For, the golden thread, which runs through the testimonies of these witnesses, is that Jagdish was present at the scene of the crime and that it is he who had assaulted the deceased with a knife. 17. Even Jagdish does not deny his presence at the scene of the crime. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he claims that he told Govindram not to tease his sister, Vimla. He further claims that it is Govindram who pulled out a knife and struck him. He claims that he ran away from the place. He further claims that two school boys came and assaulted Govindram. Later on, he had heard that Govindram was killed. Hence, even he admits his presence at the scene of the crime. He merely denies his assaulting the deceased with a knife. 18. Hence, the prosecution has clearly proven the fact that it is the appellant who had struck the deceased with a knife. The injuries claimed by the witnesses are further corroborated by the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit P/21) and by the testimony of Dr. Durga Shankar Kashyap (PW . 14). According to the Post Mortem Report, Govindram had sustained eleven injuries including eight incised wounds. His left pinky finger had an incised wound; his right wrist was cut; he had a stab wound on the left shoulder; a stab wound on the right side of the back of the neck; another stab wound on the right side of the neck in the middle; one stab wound on the left side of the chest; another stab wound on the root of the penis; and lastly a stab wound on the left side of the sternum between the second and the third rib. All these injuries were ante-Mortem in nature. As the ascending aorta was punctured, there was a great deal of blood loss. The death was due to loss of blood. The last injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to Dr. Kashyap (PW. All these injuries were ante-Mortem in nature. As the ascending aorta was punctured, there was a great deal of blood loss. The death was due to loss of blood. The last injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to Dr. Kashyap (PW. 14) the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. 9.19. According to the prosecution the weapon of assault and murder, the knife, was recovered from the scene of the crime itself . According to the FSL Report (Exhibit P/33) the knife contained "human blood." Thus, the recovery of the knife, the testimony of the witnesses, the Post Mortem Report all point to the commission of the crime by the appellant. Therefore, the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is meritless. 10.20. The learned Counsel has also assailed the trustworthiness of Manohari as an eye-witness. However, Her presence has been testified by Chotturam (PW. 1) and by Radha Kishan (PW. 2). Moreover, in her examination-in-chief she describes the scene in quite some details. She tells us that when she saw Jagdish hitting her son, she shouted, "dont kill him, dont kill him." Her shout is a natural reaction a mother would have to the lethal attack on her son. She rushed to his rescue and fell on him. She tells us the graphic details that Govindram had two hiccups and he stopped breathing. Only a person who is an eye-witness to the scene can give such minute details. She further tells us that she accompanied Bastiram back to her village. She says she was hysterical at the time as she kept on crying. She went to her husband and narrated the shocking incident to him. She is further corroborated by Radha Kishan (PW. 2) who says that she came to the farm in a hysterical state and kept on crying. She had to be claimed down before she narrated the incident to him. Manoharis testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination. Moreover, a mother who has witnessed the cold blooded murder of her son, would not let go of the real culprit and hoist a false case on the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason for not believing her testimony. It is a settled principle of criminal law that a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness. Moreover, a mother who has witnessed the cold blooded murder of her son, would not let go of the real culprit and hoist a false case on the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason for not believing her testimony. It is a settled principle of criminal law that a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness. Hence, the appellants conviction on the basis of Manoharis testimony is legally justified. 121. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal. The Judgment dated 27.08.2004 is confirmed and the appeal is, hereby dismissed. Since the appellant is already in jail, he shall continue to serve the remaining part of his sentence.