JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.9.1997 and 27.9.1997 respectively passed in S.T. No. 347 of 1995 by Additional Sessions Judge. Gumla, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution was launched on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Dasrathi Devi (P.W. 1) wife of the deceased. 3. Briefly stated prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of P.W. 1. Dasrathi Devi is that on 13.9.1995 her husband Sheocharan @ Juru Nagesia (deceased), who was a labourer had returned home in the evening. At about 7 p.m. he had gone for strolling in the village and returned at 10.30 p.m. On enquiry for the reason of delay, he told that the appellant levelled false allegation and picked up quarrel with him and consumed time. After changing cloths, Sheocharan went outside house for urination in the meanwhile the appellant came armed with an axe and inflicted repeated blows on her husband due to which he fell on the ground and started writhing. She raised alarm whereupon Lohar Nagesla. Dhanram Nagesia, Ram Tahal Nagesia and others arrived. The appellant flea away. Her Husband succumbed to the injury and died. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, the police registered a case under Section 302 of the IPC and took up investigation. On conclusion of the investigation a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the appellent. 5. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant which he denied and claimed to be tried He was put on trial. 6. The prosecution In order to prove the charge altogether examined , 2 Witnesses. The prosecution also produced and exhibited Post Mortem Report. Inquest Report, Seizure List, Fardbeyan, Formal FIR in support of its case. 7. The appellant's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. His defence was of total denial of the allegation and his false implication. 8. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial held the appellant guilty on the basis of evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 9. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of court below mainly contending that his conviction is not based on sufficient cogent and reliable evidence and is without legal basis. 9. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of court below mainly contending that his conviction is not based on sufficient cogent and reliable evidence and is without legal basis. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present case is based on the sole testimony of P.W. 1, who is the wife of deceased. She is a highly interested witness and her testimony is not reliable. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is of no consequence as they arrived at the P.O. after the retreat of the appellant and did not witness the occurrence. The alleged blood stained axe was not produced in court. There is no independent and credible evidence to support the testimony of P.W. 1 and to establish the prosecution case. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant on Such unreliable and scanty evidence. 10. Learned Additional P.P., on the other hand submitted that it is true that me present case is based on' the sole ocular version of P.W. 1. but her testimony is tree true any doubt and is wholly reliable Learned court below has rightly relied on her testimony In coming to his convicting to and convicting the appellant. The evidence of P.W 1 is also fully corroborated by me medical evidence and Objective finding at me Investigating Officer. When the ocular testimony is reliable and acceptable the lapse on the part of prosecution In not producing the blood stained axe has no consequences. There is no illegality and/or irregularities in the Impugned judgment of the court below warranting any interference by this Court. 11, Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P., we have scrutinized the evidence and material available on record. P.W.1 Informant Dasrathi Devi is wife of deceased and sole eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Lahar Nagesia, P.W. 3 Dhanram Nagesia are the neighbours of informant. who had gone to the place of occurrence after hearing alarm of informant P.W.4 Ram Tahal Nagesia, P.W.5 Sufal Rautia, P.W. 6 Petwa Rautia are tendered witnesses. P.W. 7 Bikram Rautia. P.W. 8 Kalsu Rautia arid P.W. 9 Mannet Rautia are hearsay witnesses. P.W.10 Dr. Manibhushan Prasad is the doctor who had held autopsy on the dead body of Sheocharan. P.W. 11 Raman Singh is formal witness. He has proved the inquest report and seizure list. P.W. 7 Bikram Rautia. P.W. 8 Kalsu Rautia arid P.W. 9 Mannet Rautia are hearsay witnesses. P.W.10 Dr. Manibhushan Prasad is the doctor who had held autopsy on the dead body of Sheocharan. P.W. 11 Raman Singh is formal witness. He has proved the inquest report and seizure list. P. W. 12 Narender Prasad is the I.O. of this case. The prosecution had also proved Post Mortem Report (Ext.-1). Signatures of witnesses on inquest report and seizure lists (Ext.-2 series), the fardbeyan (Ext.-3), the formal FIR Ext.-4 the inquest report (Ext-5) and the seizure lists (Exts.-6 & 6/A). 12. P.W. 10 Dr. Manibhushan Prasad supported the post mortem report and deposed that on 15.9.1995 at 11.30 a.m. he held autopsy on the dead body of Sheocharan @ Juru Nagesia and had found the following injuries:- i. Incised wound over left parietal region 4" x 1" x bone deep with fracture of left parietal bone and laceration of under Iying matter. ii. Incised wound over right parietal region 2"x1"x bone deep with fracture of right parietal bone and laceration of under lying brain matter. iii. Incised wound over occipital region 2"x1" bone deep with fracture of occipital bone and laceration of underlying brain matter. He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Tangi (axe). We find that in cross-examination, the defence has not challenged the homicidal death of deceased. Thus. from the evidence of P.W. 10 read with post mortem report (Ext-1), it is clear mat the deceased died due to the injuries inflicted upon him by a sharp cutting weapon. 13. Now the question is who caused the injuries and consequent death of Sheocharan? This brings us, to consider the relevant evidence available on record. P.W.1 Dasrathi Devi is the sole eye witness of the occurrence, she happened to be the wife of deceased. She stated that at the time of occurrence (11 p.m. in night) she was present in her house. Her husband who was a labourer had returned home in the evening and had thereafter gone for a walk in the village. He returned in late night. He told the informant that the appellant had picked up quarrel and caused delay. Thereafter her husband had gone for urination outside. Her husband who was a labourer had returned home in the evening and had thereafter gone for a walk in the village. He returned in late night. He told the informant that the appellant had picked up quarrel and caused delay. Thereafter her husband had gone for urination outside. The appellant in the meanwhile came with tangi (axe) and gave repeated tangi blows on her husband as a result thereof her husband fell down and started writhing. She raised alarm whereupon her Bhaisur (elder brother In-law) and Dhanram Nagesia came but the appellant fled away. She further stated that her husband succumbed to injuries and died. She was cross-examined at length but she remained consistent. The defence has not elicited anything to impeach her credibility. We find that the P.W. 1 has fully supported her statement made in the fardbeyan. 14. P.Ws. 2 & 3 Lohar Nagesia and Dhanram Nageslahave deposed that after hearing alarm of P.W. 1 they went to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellant was fleeing away with an axe in his hand. The deceased was lying on the ground having 3 to 4 injuries caused by' axe. They also stated that P.W. 1 disclosed that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant. These witnesses were also cross-examined by the defence, but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. There is nothing on record to show that these witnesses had any enmity and/ or personal grudge with the appellant. 15. As noticed above, the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 9 are not very much relevant because they are either tendered or hearsay witnesses. P.W. 11 is a witness of inquest who proved his signature and one Mahendra Begga on inquest report. He has also proved that an axe was recovered by the I.O. in his presence and a seizure' list was prepared and he had put his signature as a witness. P.W.12 is the I.O. who proved the fardbeyan, formal FIR, inquest report and seizure list. He has also proved place of occurrence. He has stated that he had found sufficient amount of blood lying on the ground. 16. Thus, on careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, we find that their evidences is wholly acceptable and there is nothing to discredit their version. He has also proved place of occurrence. He has stated that he had found sufficient amount of blood lying on the ground. 16. Thus, on careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, we find that their evidences is wholly acceptable and there is nothing to discredit their version. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the sole evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be made basis for convicting and sentencing the appellant as she is highly interested witness has no substance. It is well settled that the court can convict an accused relying on the testimony of even a single witness if he is wholly reliable and that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of even a single witness. As noticed above we find that there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W, 1. The defence has not elicited anything to discredit her testimony. The evidence of P.W. 1 is consistent to her earlier version made in the fardbeyan. It further appears that her presence at the place of occurrence which is in front of her house is natural. Moreover, the evidence of P.W. 1 finds full support from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are close door neighbours of the deceased. They arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after hearing hulla of P.W. 1 and saw that the appellant was fleeing from the place of occurrence with an axe in his hand. The evidence of P.W. 1 further find support from the medical evidence. The doctor has found three incised wound caused by tangi on the body of deceased. The I.O. has also found blood stained earth at the piace of occurrence. Thus, the objective finding of I.O. also supports the version of P.W.1. Under the said circumstance, we find that the learned court below has rightly accepted the ocular version of P.W.1 for convicting the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the same on this score. 17. It is true that the blood stained axe has not been produced in the court but on perusal of evidence of P.W. 12, I.O., we find that during the cross-examination the defence has not challenged the seizure of axe. We find no reason to interfere with the same on this score. 17. It is true that the blood stained axe has not been produced in the court but on perusal of evidence of P.W. 12, I.O., we find that during the cross-examination the defence has not challenged the seizure of axe. Moreover, the doctor in his examination-in-chief has stated that the injuries caused on the body of deceased were inflicted by the sharp cutting weapon, such as tangi. This part of the evidence of doctor has also not been challenged by the defence. Under the said circumstance, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant due to non-production of the axe. Moreover, it is well settled that when direct evidence is clinching and wholly reliable, the lapses on the part of prosecution in not producing the weapon used in the commission of crime is of no consequences. 18. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant has committed murder of Sheocharan @ Juru Nagesia. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below. 19. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.