JUDGMENT D.D.SINHA, J. : Heard Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant no.1, Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant no.2, and Smt. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 665/2000 whereby both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows : Deceased Ramesh Thaware was an agriculturist and resident of village Nad. PW 1 Hiraman, at the relevant time, was working with deceased Ramesh as his servant. On the day of incident, i.e. 31.8.2000, deceased Ramesh had to pay some amount to PW 1 Hiraman towards his salary. Hence, he along with PW 1 Hiraman went to Cooperative Bank at village Besur. Deceased Ramesh withdrew an amount of Rs.2,000/- from his account. Deceased Ramesh and PW 1 Hiraman thereafter came out of the Bank where appellants met them. Appellant no.1 Fulchand demanded an amount of Rs.100/- from deceased Ramesh for drinking liquor. Deceased Ramesh refused to pay the same. Being enraged by such refusal, appellant no.1 Fulchand assaulted deceased Ramesh by a blade. Deceased Ramesh suffered two-three scratch injuries on his cheek and chest. After the said incident, deceased Ramesh and PW 1 Hiraman returned to their village Nad. Deceased Ramesh kept the amount of Rs.2,000/- at his home and then both of them went to the agricultural land of deceased Ramesh. At about 5.30 p.m. on the same day, while deceased Ramesh and PW 1 Hiraman were returning to their home, both the appellants again accosted them. Appellant no.1 Fulchand caught hold of deceased Ramesh whereas appellant no.2 Bhadu caught hold of PW 1 Hiraman. At about 5.30 p.m. on the same day, while deceased Ramesh and PW 1 Hiraman were returning to their home, both the appellants again accosted them. Appellant no.1 Fulchand caught hold of deceased Ramesh whereas appellant no.2 Bhadu caught hold of PW 1 Hiraman. Appellant no.1 Fulchand was holding two knives in his hands and assaulted deceased Ramesh by means of knives on his stomach. PW 1 Hiraman, however, managed to escape from the spot by releasing himself from the clutches of appellant no.2 Bhadu. PW 1 Hiraman rushed towards the village. At that time, brothers of deceased Ramesh were sitting on the platform in front of the temple at village Nad. Other villagers were also sitting under the banyan tree just near the temple. PW 1 Hiraman informed all of them that appellants Fulchand and Bhadu assaulted his employer. The brothers of deceased Ramesh and other villagers immediately proceeded towards the spot of occurrence. While they were on the way to the spot of occurrence, they saw appellants coming from the opposite direction with the weapons in their hands. Appellant no.1 Fulchand was holding two knives whereas appellant no.2 Bhadu was armed with one knife. The moment appellants saw mob coming from the side of the village, they started running and wanted to escape. It is the case of the prosecution that villagers and brothers of deceased Ramesh chased the appellants and apprehended them. The weapons from their hands were snatched and they were brought in the village and tied at one place by rope and some villagers remained there to guard them. 4. After the above incident, brother of deceased Ramesh and PW 1 Hiraman went to the spot of occurrence where deceased Ramesh was assaulted. Deceased Ramesh was lying on his stomach and had sustained serious injuries. The brother of deceased Ramesh turned him on his back and covered his wounds caused to stomach by one dupatta (muflar.. Due to serious injuries suffered by deceased Ramesh on his stomach, his intestine had come out. The brother of deceased Ramesh gave him drinking water and immediately thereafter Ramesh breathed his last. 5. PW 1 Hiraman lodged the report of the incident in the Police Station, Umrer. On receipt of the information of the occurrence, Police Sub-Inspector, who was on duty in the Police Station, immediately rushed to village Nad. By that time, it was midnight. The brother of deceased Ramesh gave him drinking water and immediately thereafter Ramesh breathed his last. 5. PW 1 Hiraman lodged the report of the incident in the Police Station, Umrer. On receipt of the information of the occurrence, Police Sub-Inspector, who was on duty in the Police Station, immediately rushed to village Nad. By that time, it was midnight. P.S.I. visited the spot and saw the dead body of Ramesh. On the next day of the incident, Investigating Officer prepared spot panchanama and inquest panchanama and forwarded the dead body of Ramesh for post mortem examination. The weapons, which were snatched from the appellants by the mob, were kept with the brother of deceased Ramesh, namely, Ankush, who handed over the same to the Investigating Officer on the next day of the incident, which were seized by the Investigating Officer. 6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. The appellants also sustained some injuries and, therefore, they were first taken to Police Station, Umrer and thereafter they were admitted in the Hospital. Appellant no.1 Fulchand was in the Hospital till 6.9.2000 and on his discharge from the hospital, came to be arrested on 6.9.2000 whereas appellant no.2 Bhadu was in the Hospital till 7.9.2000 and after his discharge, he was arrested by the Police on 7.9.2000. 7. The Investigating Officer on completion of formal investigation, filed charge-sheet against both the appellants. The charge was framed against the appellants and same was read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant no.1, and Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant no.2, submitted that in the instant case, PW 1 Hiraman was examined by the prosecution as an eye witness to the incident whereas PW 2 Ajabrao (brother of deceased Ramesh. was examined by the prosecution to prove, apart from other things, the oral dying declaration given by deceased Ramesh to him. PW 3 Totaram did not support the prosecution and, therefore, was declared hostile whereas PW 4 Ankush (brother of deceased Ramesh. had produced weapons, which were alleged to have been snatched by the mob from the hands of the appellants, before the Police on the next day of the incident. PW 3 Totaram did not support the prosecution and, therefore, was declared hostile whereas PW 4 Ankush (brother of deceased Ramesh. had produced weapons, which were alleged to have been snatched by the mob from the hands of the appellants, before the Police on the next day of the incident. It was submitted that PW 5 Raju is the sole panch witness examined by the prosecution to prove seizure of clothes of deceased Ramesh and accused (Exhs. 46, 47 and 48., spot panchanama (Exh. 43., seizure memo of iron pipe (Exh. 48. and inquest panchanama (Exh. 44.. PW 6 Dr. Moreshwar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh and proved the post mortem report. PW 7 Ranjeetsingh was the Investigating Officer, who investigated the crime in question. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that PW 1 Hiraman was the servant of deceased Ramesh and, therefore, was highly interested in the prosecution, hence, testimony of PW 1 Hiraman is doubtful and unreliable. It was contended that the prosecution case disclosed by this witness is highly improbable. According to this witness, appellant no.1 Fulchand was armed with two weapons (knives. and appellant no.2 Bhadu was armed with one weapon. It was contended that theory of appellant no.1 Fulchand being armed with two weapons is improbable and exaggerated and, therefore, creates doubt about authenticity of the testimony of this witness. It was submitted that there is no corroboration to the part of the testimony of PW 1 Hiraman, which relates to the first incident, which was alleged to have taken place outside the Cooperative Bank at village Besur. Since the prosecution failed to prove the first incident of assault, it creates serious doubt about the case of the prosecution in respect of second incident alleged to have taken place at 5.30 p.m. on the same day as claimed by PW 1 Hiraman. It was submitted that testimony of PW 1 Hiraman being that of interested witness as well as untrustworthy, needs to be discarded. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as evidence of PW 2 Ajabrao is concerned, he claims that he was informed by PW 3 Totaram that the appellants had been to Tanda for drinking liquor and both of them were saying that they would commit murder of Ramesh. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that so far as evidence of PW 2 Ajabrao is concerned, he claims that he was informed by PW 3 Totaram that the appellants had been to Tanda for drinking liquor and both of them were saying that they would commit murder of Ramesh. It was contended that PW 3 Totaram did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile and, therefore, information received by PW 3 Ajabrao about the occurrence was hearsay and the version of PW 2 Ajabrao that deceased Ramesh told him that the appellants assaulted him by knives on his stomach also becomes doubtful and, therefore, trial Court has not placed much reliance on the testimony of this witness. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that similar is the case with the evidence of PW 4 Ankush as well as PW 5 Raju (panch witness.. The trial Court has also not given much importance to the Chemical Analyser's report. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the medical evidence by itself is inadequate to bring home the guilt of the appellants for the offence of murder or for causing hurt since the evidence of PW 1 Hiraman is not reliable and cogent. It was contended that the evidence of PW 7 Ranjeetsingh, Investigating Officer only demonstrates the nature and manner in which investigation was conducted by him. It was submitted that there are many loopholes in the investigation and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is not straight-forward. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellants alternatively contended that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that complicity of appellant no.1 Fulchand is established by the prosecution, even then so far as appellant no.2 Bhadu is concerned, prosecution evidence does not establish that he had committed any overt act in the alleged incident of assault and in absence thereof, criminal liability for the offence punishable under Section 302 or 324 of Indian Penal Code cannot be fastened on him with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, he needs to be acquitted. 13. Smt. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 13. Smt. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. It was contended that evidence of PW 1 Hiraman coupled with the medical evidence as well as evidence of Investigating Officer is sufficient to prove the offences charged against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It was submitted that first information report was lodged by PW 1 Hiraman without lapse of time wherein all the material particulars of the prosecution case have been mentioned. The testimony of this witness is free from material omissions and contradictions and also consistent with the prosecution case. The same is totally corroborated by the medical evidence and, therefore, finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court is just and proper. It was further contended that prosecution succeeded in proving both the incidents, which had taken place on the relevant day, i.e. first incident of assault outside the Cooperative Bank at village Besur as well as incident which had taken place at about 5.30 p.m. It was submitted that the appellants were apprehended on the spot by the villagers, who also assaulted them and, therefore, they were required to be admitted in the Government Hospital. 14. It was further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that appellant no.2 Bhadu was also armed with a knife and it has come in the evidence of prosecution that he caught hold of collar of PW 1 Hiraman and also showed him a knife, which prevented him from helping his master - deceased Ramesh, who was assaulted by appellant no.1 Fulchand. It was, therefore, contended that appellant no.2 had shared common intention of killing Ramesh with appellant no.1. 15. We have given anxious thought to the various contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants and scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution. PW 1 Hiraman in his examination-in-chief has stated that he and his master deceased Ramesh, on the day of incident at about 11 A.M., went to village Besur since deceased Ramesh wanted to withdraw amount of Rs.2,000/- from the Bank. Deceased Ramesh withdrew the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the Bank and when deceased Ramesh and this witness came out of the Bank, both the appellants approached them and appellant no.1 Fulchand demanded Rs.100/- from deceased Ramesh for drinking liquor. Deceased Ramesh withdrew the amount of Rs.2,000/- from the Bank and when deceased Ramesh and this witness came out of the Bank, both the appellants approached them and appellant no.1 Fulchand demanded Rs.100/- from deceased Ramesh for drinking liquor. Deceased Ramesh refused to oblige him and, therefore, appellant no.1 Fulchand assaulted deceased Ramesh with a blade and caused injuries on the face and chest of deceased Ramesh. This witness has further stated in his examination-in-chief that the said incident had taken place at about 2 p.m. and thereafter both of them came back to the house of deceased Ramesh. Deceased Ramesh kept the amount withdrawn from the Bank in his house and thereafter they went to the field of deceased Ramesh. At about 5.30 p.m. while they were returning from the field to the house of deceased Ramesh, appellants Fulchand and Bhadu accosted them. Appellant no.1 Fulchand held the collar of deceased Ramesh whereas appellant no.2 Bhadu held the collar of this witness. Appellant no.1 Fulchand was holding a knife in his right hand and inflicted injuries by means of knife on the stomach of deceased Ramesh. Appellant no.2 Bhadu was also holding a weapon like knife and rushed with the said weapon towards this witness. PW 1 Hiraman has further stated in his examination-in-chief that he somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the appellants and ran towards the village and informed PW 2 Ajabrao (brother of deceased Ramesh. about the incident of assault. This witness also informed the other brother of deceased Ramesh ñ Santosh about the incident. It has come in the examination-in-chief of this witness that after he gave the information about the assault to the brothers of deceased Ramesh and villagers, all of them rushed to the spot of occurrence. On the way, they saw appellants coming from the opposite direction. The villagers caught hold of the appellants and tied them by rope. Thereafter PW 1 Hiraman lodged the report with the Police Station, Umrer, which is Exh. 19. 16. We have carefully considered the lengthy cross-examination of this witness conducted by the defence and found that material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by this witness in the first information report as well as in his examination-in-chief are reaffirmed in the cross-examination. Thereafter PW 1 Hiraman lodged the report with the Police Station, Umrer, which is Exh. 19. 16. We have carefully considered the lengthy cross-examination of this witness conducted by the defence and found that material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by this witness in the first information report as well as in his examination-in-chief are reaffirmed in the cross-examination. PW 1 Hiraman, in his cross-examination, has admitted the suggestion that the incident of assault by blade took place in the courtyard of the Bank. He has also admitted that he did not make any hue and cry at the time of the said assault nor made any attempt to snatch blade from the assailants. Similarly, he did not call Manager or other staff of the Bank. He has also admitted the suggestion given by the defence that he did not file any report immediately after the incident of assault on deceased Ramesh by blade. Similarly, it has come in the cross-examination that he had informed all the villagers, who were sitting under the neem tree, regarding assault committed on deceased Ramesh. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he and others were chasing the appellants for about half an hour and ultimately succeeded in catching them. The appellants suffered injuries to their foot. He has also admitted the suggestion that he informed PW 2 Ajabrao regarding the assault. This witness has also admitted the suggestion that he did not snatch the weapon from the hands of the accused. Similarly, he has also admitted the suggestion given in the cross-examination that when appellant no.1 Fulchand made an assault on deceased Ramesh, he did not shout or try to obstruct the accused. He has also admitted the suggestion given by the defence that his shirt got torn as appellant no.2 Bhadu put knife on his stomach. He has further admitted in the cross-examination that he was present at the spot when villagers tied the accused persons with rope and he participated in the said process. This witness has also admitted in the crossexamination that while deceased Ramesh and this witness were coming back from Besur, deceased Ramesh was possessing amount of Rs.2000/- and had kept in the pocket of his pant. 17. This witness has also admitted in the crossexamination that while deceased Ramesh and this witness were coming back from Besur, deceased Ramesh was possessing amount of Rs.2000/- and had kept in the pocket of his pant. 17. The careful scrutiny of evidence of PW 1 Hiraman clearly demonstrates that he was the servant of deceased Ramesh and was with deceased Ramesh at the relevant time, hence his presence on the scene of occurrence was natural. Similarly, testimony of this witness is cogent, straight-forward and consistent with the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by this witness in the first information report, which was lodged without lapse of time. It is pertinent to note that when the first information report is lodged without lapse of time, immediately after the incident, in such situation, possibility of concoction or fabrication is ruled out. In the instant case, all the material particulars of the prosecution case in respect of both the incidents, which had taken place on the same day, were disclosed in the first information report, which are proved by this witness by adducing cogent evidence. The careful scrutiny of the crossexamination of this witness shows that defence has not disputed presence of the appellants as well as deceased Ramesh and this witness on the scene of occurrence, which had taken place at 2 p.m. and 5.30 p.m on the day of incident nor assault committed by appellant no.1 Fulchand as well as catching hold of appellants by the villagers. The cross-examination of this witness reaffirms material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by this witness in the first information report as well as in his ocular testimony, which renders evidence of this witness cogent and reliable. 18. It is difficult for us to agree with the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellants in respect of testimony of PW 1 Hiraman since the evidence of this witness is completely consistent with the prosecution case and free from omissions and contradictions muchless material one. Merely because this witness at the relevant time was working as servant with deceased Ramesh does not make him interested witness. It is no doubt true that defence wanted to demonstrate that there was some enmity between this witness and appellant no.1 Fulchand. Merely because this witness at the relevant time was working as servant with deceased Ramesh does not make him interested witness. It is no doubt true that defence wanted to demonstrate that there was some enmity between this witness and appellant no.1 Fulchand. However, in view of cogent testimony of this witness, it is difficult to discard the testimony of this witness on the ground that he was the interested witness, particularly because the same is reliable, trustworthy and also corroborated by the medical evidence. 19. PW 6 Dr. Moreshwar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh and found the following external injuries : 1. C.L.W. T type injury just upon left eye brow measuring ½ cm. x ½ cm, bone deep. 2. abrasion on left zygomatic region 2 cm. x 2 cm. 3. abrasion right side of chest medial to left nipple measuring ½ cm. x ½ cm. 4. abrasion on left nipple 2 cm. x ½ cm. 5. abrasion on epigastric ñ 3 cm. X ½ cm. 6. punctured wound over abdomen below 2 cm. to the umbilicus, 2 cm. x 1 cm. cavity deep. 7. punctured wound five cms right lat. to umbilicus 2½ cm. x 1 x cavity deep. 8. punctured wound 7½ cm. right lateral to umbilicus measuring 3 cm. x 1 cm. cavity deep. 9. punctured wound right thigh below right anterior superior ilace spine ½ cm. x ½ cm. Similarly, Doctor noticed the following internal injuries on the person of deceased Ramesh : 1. Punctured wound on small intestine underlying injury no.(6. measuring 2 ½ cm. x 1 cm. 2. Punctured wound on small intestine under injury no.(7. 2 cm. x 1 cm. 3. Punctured wound on small intestine underlying injury no.(8. 2½ cm. x 1 cm. 4. Peritoneum punctured due to injuries. Abdominal cavity was full of blood. PW 6 Dr. Moreshwar opined that cause of death of Ramesh was shock due to intra abdominal bleeding due to punctured wound on the small intestine. In the cross-examination, Doctor has admitted that shock was result of injuries suffered by deceased Ramesh. The medical evidence, in our view, completely corroborates the prosecution case disclosed by PW 1 Hiraman in respect of both the incidents, which had taken place on 31.8.2000. As per testimony of PW 6 Dr. In the cross-examination, Doctor has admitted that shock was result of injuries suffered by deceased Ramesh. The medical evidence, in our view, completely corroborates the prosecution case disclosed by PW 1 Hiraman in respect of both the incidents, which had taken place on 31.8.2000. As per testimony of PW 6 Dr. Moreshwar, deceased Ramesh had injury on his left eye brow and two abrasions on the chest. PW 1 Hiraman in his testimony has specifically stated that the first incident of assault had taken place outside the Bank at village Besur and during the said assault, appellant no.1 Fulchand inflicted injuries on the face and chest of deceased Ramesh by means of a blade. It is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Similarly, the testimony of PW 1 Hiraman further discloses that the second incident of assault had taken place at about 5.30 p.m. on the same day and during the said assault, appellant no.1 Fulchand inflicted injuries by means of knife in the stomach of deceased Ramesh. The evidence of Medical Officer shows that deceased Ramesh suffered punctured wounds on his stomach as well as umbilicus . It is, therefore, evident that the medical evidence completely corroborates the material particulars of the prosecution case disclosed by PW 1 Hiraman. 20. We want to express that in the criminal trial, it is the quality of evidence, which matters rather than the quantity. It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine many witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. What is necessary for the prosecution is to adduce evidence, which is truthful, trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness, if same is free from doubt and trustworthy provided it is corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case, the testimony of PW 1 Hiraman, in our considered view, is cogent, consistent with the prosecution case and also completely corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW 6 Dr. Moreshwar and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder as well as causing hurt to deceased Ramesh beyond all reasonable doubts. 21. Moreshwar and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge of murder as well as causing hurt to deceased Ramesh beyond all reasonable doubts. 21. So far as complicity of appellant no.2 Bhadu is concerned, it has come in the cross-examination of PW 1 Hiraman that he caught hold of collar of PW 1 Hiraman and put the blade of the knife on the stomach of PW 1 Hiraman. It is no doubt true that no injury was inflicted by appellant no.2 Bhadu by means of knife either on the person of deceased Ramesh or PW 1 Hiraman. However, his overt act and conduct prevented PW 1 Hiraman from rescuing his master ñ deceased Ramesh from the clutches of appellant no.1 Fulchand at the time of assault. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the view that the trial Court is justified in convicting appellant no.2 Bhadu for the offence of murder as well as causing hurt along with appellant no.1 Fulchand with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 22. It is no doubt true that as per the testimony of PW 2 Ajabrao, PW 3 Totaram, on the day of incident, came to him and informed him about the incident of assault, which had taken place at 5.30 p.m. However, PW 3 Totaram had not supported this theory as well as prosecution case in the Court and, therefore, was declared hostile. In our view, even if much importance is not given to the testimonies of these two witnesses and PW 4 Ankush, even then it does not adversely affect the prosecution case disclosed by eye witness - PW 1 Hiraman. 23. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not collected the documentary evidence from the Cooperative Bank at Besur in respect of saving account of deceased Ramesh and withdrawal of amount of Rs.2,000/-. The Investigating Officer has also not recorded statement of any employee of the Bank or brother of deceased Ramesh. The Investigating Officer did not seize dupatta and rope as well as clothes of the accused immediately. We deprecate the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer while investigating the crime in question. However, we are of the view that these discrepancies are minor in nature and do not shatter the ocular testimony of PW 1 Hiraman, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence. We deprecate the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer while investigating the crime in question. However, we are of the view that these discrepancies are minor in nature and do not shatter the ocular testimony of PW 1 Hiraman, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence. 24. In the instant case, the blood of `O' group was detected on the clothes of the accused, which is evident from the Chemical Analyser's report. However, since clothes of the accused came to be seized after lapse of five-six days from the date of incident, much reliance cannot be placed on this circumstance though this circumstance otherwise would have been incriminating. 25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are just and proper and are confirmed. The criminal appeal suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed.