Judgment Samarendra Pratap Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.1.98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Barh in Sessions Trial No. 807 of 1995 arising out Mokama P.S. Case No. 263 of 1994 whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. One Teto Devi, P.W.1, wife of Jai Ram Mahto (deceased) made statement on 18.12.1994 at 9.30 A.M. stating therein that her husband who was a mason returned on 17.12.1994 after seven days. At about 7.30 P.M. on 17.12.94 one Manohar Mahto alongwith his brother, Laxman Mahto, mother, Kalo Devi and sister, Ranju Kumari, came to his door. Manohar Mahto who was armed with Patti of cot, gave a patti blow on the head of Jai Ram Mahto, as a result of which he became unconscious. On hearing halla the people of the locality, namely, Bharo Mahto, Ram Nandan Mahto came there and took Jai Ram Mahto to Nazareth Hospital, Mokama, where in course of treatment he breathed his last on 18.12.1994. 3. The informant alleged that one Kalo Devi, the mother of the accused appellant did "Jadu Tona" on ten years old son of the informant, on account of which, he used to remain ill. The informant protested to such act, which enraged Kalo Devi who threatened that she will make her widow very soon. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7) was drawn up under Sections 304 and 321 of the I.P.C. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304 and 321 of I.P.C., but charges were framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Teto Devi is the informant herself. P.W. 2 is Ram Nandan Mahto, P.W. 3 is Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai, P.W.4 is Chawkidar Shailendra Mahto, P.W. 5 is Doman Mahto, P.W. 6 is Dr. Om Prakash Raman who treated the deceased in Mokama Nazareth Hospital, P.W. 7 is Dashrath Ram, P.W. 8, Naresh Prasad is the I.O. of this case, and P.W. 9 is Shyam Kishore Rai. 6. P.W.1 Teto Devi fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2, Ram Nandan Mahto, has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Jai Ram Mahto. 6. P.W.1 Teto Devi fully supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2, Ram Nandan Mahto, has been declared hostile. P.W. 3 Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Jai Ram Mahto. He found one lacerated injury 1½" x ½" x skin deep on right frontal part of the skull and 4" x 3" fracture of right parietal bone. He opined that the reason of death was on account of shock and haemorrhage caused by hard and blunt substance. Age of injury was about 30 to 42 hours. He opined that the injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the post mortem examination report, marked as Ext.1. He has also proved the signature of Dr. Bhubneshwar Singh on the challan of the dead body and inquest report marked as Ext. 2 and 2/1 respectively. In cross-examination he has stated that Haematoma was found on scalp and injuries was caused by hard blunt substance. P.W. 4 is a formal witness. P.W. 5 has prepared inquest report. He has proved his signature and the signature of Daso Mahto on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 5 and Ext. 5/1. P.W. 6, Dr. Om Prakash Raman was a Junior Resident Doctor in Nazareth Hospital, Mokama on 18.12.94. He has deposed that he examined Jai Ram Mahto in unconscious state. He found cut mark on tempro parietal region. He has proved the injury report (Ext. 6). P.W. 7, Dashrath Rai is a formal witness, who has proved his signature and the signature of Doman Rai in the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext. 5 and Ext. 5/1. P.W.8, Naresh Pd. is the I.O. of this case. In course of examination, he has deposed that he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, Teto Devi in the aforesaid hospital which has been marked as Ext. 4. He has proved endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the fardbeyan (Ext. 4/1). He has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7). He prepared the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 8. He has proved his signature on challan of the dead body of the deceased, marked as Ext. 9. However, in cross examination he has stated that he has not written in the diary the steps taken for obtaining post mortem examination report from Begusarai. 7). He prepared the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 8. He has proved his signature on challan of the dead body of the deceased, marked as Ext. 9. However, in cross examination he has stated that he has not written in the diary the steps taken for obtaining post mortem examination report from Begusarai. He has not recorded the statement of the accused persons. He has not recorded the statement of the witnesses of the locality. P.W. 9, Shyam Kishore Ram is a formal witnesses who has proved the protest petition (Ext. 10) and Vakalatnama (Ext.11). 7. The defence has not examined any witness in support of its case. 8. On consideration of the aforesaid materials on record, the Trial Court found that the accused appellant assaulted Jai Ram Mahto with patti only once on the head of the deceased which however proved fatal. The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution has not been able to prove charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the appellant, but only under Section 304 I.P.C. Accordingly the Trial Court held him guilty under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ranbir Singh, who has appeared as amicus curiae, submits that the injury sustained by appellant can also be caused by fall. He states that appellant has been implicated in this case on account of village politics. He has further stated that the informant in her fardbeyan stated that the occurrence took place way back in the year, 1994. 10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the informant in her deposition has fully supported the prosecution case that the appellant hurled patti blow on the head of Jai Ram Mahto as a result of which he became unconscious. P.W. 6, Dr. Om Prakash Raman who was then posted in Mokama Nazerath Hospital had examined the injured. He found the injury 1½" x ¼" on his head. He deposed that the injury may be possible by lathi. Age of the injury was within 6 hours. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 has amply proved the prosecution case. The time of the occurrence mentioned in the aforesaid injury report as well as post mortem report corroborates and fits in with prosecution case. The Medical reports thus fully corroborates prosecution case. Age of the injury was within 6 hours. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 has amply proved the prosecution case. The time of the occurrence mentioned in the aforesaid injury report as well as post mortem report corroborates and fits in with prosecution case. The Medical reports thus fully corroborates prosecution case. The motive of occurrence is also not far to seek. The mother of the appellant practiced witchcraft on son of the complainant. A protest to the same by complainant annoyed Kalo Devi, the mother of appellant and she threatened to make her widow. I find that the evidence of P.W.1 is fully reliable and the defence has not succeeded in eliciting anything which may weaken the prosecution case. It is well settled that conviction can be sustained even on evidence of sole eye witness, if it is otherwise trustworthy and consistent. 12. This Court finds that the appellant did not repeat the blow and the appellant gave only one blow, and the injury caused was 1 ½" x ½" x skin deep. The learned Trial Court rightly while acquitting the appellant of charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. has convicted him under Section 304 of the I.P.C. 13. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court holds the appellant guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and upholds his conviction under Section 304 of the I.P.C. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned it appears that the occurrence took place in the year 1994 more than 14 years ago. The impact of the injury, though inflicted on the head of the deceased was not very severe in nature. In this view of the matter, the period of sentence of 10 years inflicted by the learned Court below, is reduced to simple imprisonment of 7 years. 14. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled, and he is directed to surrender before the Court below to face the remaining part of the sentence. 15. This Court directs that Mr. Ranbir Singh who has appeared amicus curiae will be paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/- by the High Court Legal Service Committee.