JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 8.7.03 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby while acquitting three other co-accused persons, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code ('Indian Penal Code' for short) and has been sentenced as under : (i) For offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. (ii) For offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo three months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. (iii) For offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo four months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. 2. According to the prosecution, on 15.7.01 one Ramniwas had lodged a written report (Ex.P.3) at Police Station Phagi wherein he claimed "that today i.e. 15.5.2000 at around 12 O' Clock in the afternoon they went to put a tin-shed over their house. While they were putting the tin-sheds, Ladu S/o Ramnath, Harji S/o Ramnath, Mohan S/o Ladu, Prema S/o Ladu, Chhiter S/o Harji, Ramnarain S/o Harji, Bhagwan Sahay S/o Ladu, Chhoti W/o Ladu, Kali W/o Mohan Raiger, R/o Moonpura (Rajawatan) came armed with 'Kulhari' (axe), 'Barchhi' (small axe) and 'lathies' (bamboo sticks). These people came to his house and started hitting Suja S/o Kishan. Mohan hit Suja on his head and face. Consequently, Suja has been murdered. In the affray everyone was involved and Tarachand S/o Suja Raiger has also been hit. He has lost consciousness. After hearing our hue and cries, Satyanarain S/o Kalyan Meena and Parshuram S/o Ramniwas Raiger and others from the village rushed to our rescue". On the basis of this report the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 171/2000 for offences under Sections 147, 147, 149, 452, 323 and 302 Indian Penal Code. Although nine persons were named in the FIR, but after a thorough investigation the police filed charge-sheet only against four persons, namely, Ladu, Mohan, Smt. Chhoti Devi and Smt. Kali Devi. On the basis of this report the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 171/2000 for offences under Sections 147, 147, 149, 452, 323 and 302 Indian Penal Code. Although nine persons were named in the FIR, but after a thorough investigation the police filed charge-sheet only against four persons, namely, Ladu, Mohan, Smt. Chhoti Devi and Smt. Kali Devi. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and submitted twenty-seven documents. The accused persons did not examine any witness, but did submit two documents in defence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence vide judgment dated 8.7.03 while the learned trial court acquitted Ladu, Smt. Chhoti Devi and Smt. Kali Devi of the aforementioned offences, it convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this court. 3. Ms. Lalima Purohit, the learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant has raised the following contentions: firstly, that the prosecution has been changing its story at different stages: initially, according to the FIR nine persons were involved in the alleged incident, but the police filed charge-sheet against only four persons. Thus clearly the prosecution began with a case of over-implication. Moreover, the prosecution examined Smt. Nathi (P.W.3) Ramniwas (P.W.5) and Tarachand (P.W.11) as eye-witnesses of the incident. However, the learned trial court has concluded that neither Smt. Nathi (P.W.3), nor Ramniwas (P.W.5) were eye-witnesses. Thus, the learned trial court has disbelieved their testimony with regard to the alleged murder. This clearly shows that the prosecution has introduced witnesses and that too interested witnesses as Smt. Nathi happens to be the wife of the deceased. Secondly, the entire case is based on the sole testimony of Tarachand. Tarachand happens to be the son of the deceased. He is, therefore, also an interested witness. Thirdly, Tarachand's testimony is not corroborated by other independent witnesses. Therefore, he is an unreliable witness. Fourthly, that even if Tarachand were to be believed, the appellant had struck the deceased only once and that too with a 'lathi' (bamboo stick). Therefore, the case does not travel further than Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and is not covered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sandu, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness. Therefore, the case does not travel further than Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and is not covered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Sandu, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness. Moreover, since Tarachand (P.W.11) was injured in the same incident, his presence at the scene of the crime cannot be doubted. Furthermore, since a dispute with regard to the land existed between the parties, the appellant not only had the intention to kill the deceased, but also had the knowledge that by hitting the deceased over the head, his death can be caused. Lastly, that the testimony of Tarachand is supported by the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P.20). Therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 452 Indian Penal Code. He has, thus, supported the impugned judgment. 5. We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties, have perused the impugned judgment and have examined the record. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal law that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness, provided that the sole witness is trustworthy. Moreover, it is equally settled that the evidence of interested witness cannot be rejected in toto. The fact that the witness was related to the victim merely alerts the court to be cautious while accepting his/her testimony. In such a case the court looks for corroboration from other evidence available on record. The principle with regard to the acceptance of testimony of interested witness, by now, is well settled. In the case of Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana ( (2002) 8 SCC 372 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: "......evidence of interested witnesses should be scrutinised more carefully to find out if it has a ring of truth. If the same is found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence in the mind of the court, it cannot be discarded totally merely on the ground of certain variations or infirmities or additions and embellishments, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core......" 7. If the same is found acceptable and seems to inspire confidence in the mind of the court, it cannot be discarded totally merely on the ground of certain variations or infirmities or additions and embellishments, unless they are of such nature as to undermine the substratum of the evidence and found to be tainted to the core......" 7. Likewise, in the case of Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) ( (2003) 1 SCC 21 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : " Witness being interested by itself cannot possibly be a ground to reject the evidence on record. The test of creditworthiness or acceptability, ought to be the guiding factor and if so, question of raising an eyebrow on the reliability of the witness being an interested witness would be futile - in the event the evidence is otherwise acceptable, there ought not to be any hindrance in the matter of the prosecutor's success. The evidence must inspire confidence and in the event of unshaken credibility, there is no justifiable reason to reject the same". 8. Since Tarachand (P.W.11) is an injured witness, his presence at the scene of the crime cannot be doubted. Tarachand tells us that the incident had occurred about two years and four months ago, around 12 O' Clock in the afternoon. He claims that there is a land around his house in village Mohanpura. He further tells that the accused persons were trying to forcefully take possession of the land. According to him even earlier there was a dispute between his family and the accused persons. A village Panchayat had been called and it was decided that the land will continue to be with Suja and that Ladu and his family members would not try to forcefully take the possession of the said lad. However, Ladu and his family members were not willing to accept the decision of the Panchayat. He further tells us that when his father told them not to forcefully enter the lad, Mohan struck his father over the head with a 'lathi'. He also struck Tarachand with the 'lathi'. He further states that he and his father were taken in a tractor to the Phagi Hospital, but on the way his father expired. In his cross-examination, he clearly states that his mother, (Smt. Nathi (P.W.3) was not at the house when Mohan struck his father. He also struck Tarachand with the 'lathi'. He further states that he and his father were taken in a tractor to the Phagi Hospital, but on the way his father expired. In his cross-examination, he clearly states that his mother, (Smt. Nathi (P.W.3) was not at the house when Mohan struck his father. In fact his mother had gone to the farm and his sister had gone to her in-laws. He further states that while his father was cleaning his hands at the house, Mohan came with a 'lathi' and hit his father over the head. He also admits in his cross-examination that Ramniwas (P.W.5) was not present at the scene of the crime, but was sleeping in his house. 9. A bare perusal of his testimony clearly reveals that his testimony has not been demolished in the cross-examination. Not only does he repeat the story as given by him in the examination-in-chief, but also frankly and truthfully admits that his mother Smt. Nathi (P.W.3) and Ramniwas (P.W.5) were not eye-witnesses of the incident. Thus, he is a reliable witness. 10. According to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.20) the deceased had sustained a single injury on his head, although the said injury resulted in multiple fracture of right parietal bone and the fracture of the frontal bone. According to the medical opinion cause of death was due to the head injury. Of course, the deceased had also suffered a lacerated wound on the lower limb of the body, but the same was not fatal in nature. Therefore, Tarachand's testimony has been corroborated by the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.20). Furthermore, the recovery of the 'lathi' from the appellant further corroborates Tarachand's testimony. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly believed the testimony of the sole eye-witness, Tarachand. 11. A bare perusal of the facts narrated above clearly reveal that the appellant came all of a sudden to where the deceased and Tarachand were. He came merely armed with a 'lathi'. He hit the deceased only once over the head and did not repeat his blows. Thus, there was no pre-meditation and no intention to kill the deceased. In case the appellant wanted to kill the deceased he would have either came with a lethal weapon, or would have repeated the blows. He came merely armed with a 'lathi'. He hit the deceased only once over the head and did not repeat his blows. Thus, there was no pre-meditation and no intention to kill the deceased. In case the appellant wanted to kill the deceased he would have either came with a lethal weapon, or would have repeated the blows. Therefore, this case does not fall within the ambit of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code and cannot be punished under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. At best, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II. 12. As far as the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is concerned, according to Tarachand (P.W.11) he was hit by the appellant over the head only once. According to his X-Ray Report (Ex.P.27) he had sustained a fracture on the frontoparietal region. As in the case of the deceased, so in the case of Tarachand, the appellant did not have the intention to commit murder. At best, it was a case of attempt to commit culpable homicide. Thus, the case falls under Section 308 Indian Penal Code. However, as the appellant has already served the sentence for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, we see no reason for interfering with the conviction and sentence. 13. Similarly, since the incident occurred at the house of the deceased where the appellant had no business to be and had no right to be, therefore, the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code is also clearly made out. 14. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of Section 302, we convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. Looking to the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for a period of more than seven years, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. We however maintain his conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 452 Indian Penal Code. The appellant who has already served out the sentence awarded to him under Sections 307 and 452 Indian Penal Code and who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. 15. The impugned judgment of learned trial court stands modified as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******