JUDGMENT Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J. This Appeal arises out or the verdict of conviction in S.C. No. 256 of 2007 (dated 22.2.2008) on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur convicting the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/-each; Accused Nos. 3 to 5 were acquitted from all charges. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are the residents of Thiruvalliangudi Village and the Accused No. l Chelladurai and Accused No. 5 Dhanapal are the brothers of the deceased Arjunan. Accused 3 and 4 are the sons of Accused No. 5. Accused No. 2 is the son of the deceased through his first wife Dhanalakshmi. The deceased had two sons through his second wife Kalaiselvi, namely, Rajamohan and Chandramohan. The deceased and the accused are closely related as under: 3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) One Natesan, uncle of the deceased Arjunan was living in Thiruvalliangudi Village. Admittedly he had no issues. Natesan had executed a Will in respect of his immovable properties and landed properties, in favour of P.W.1 and his brother Chandramohan. The bequeathed lands were actually in possession of A1-Chelladurai. In view of the execution of the Will, the deceased had demanded possession of the land from A1, there arose a dispute which resulted in strained relationship between the parties. A2 being another son of the deceased aggrieved over the non-allotment of any share, he has also developed grudge against the deceased and frequently involved in quarrel with the deceased. (ii) Natarajan died about 10 months prior to the occurrence. His wife, Chinnaponnu also died 20 days prior to the occurrence. Her obsequies was performed on 3.8.2005 in Thiruvalliangudi. After the ceremony, the deceased was sleeping outside the house on a bench underneath a pandal, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 were sleeping on the floor. At 12.45 a.m., the intervening night between 3.8.2005 and 4.8.2005, appellants along with 3 acquitted accused (Accused Nos. 3 to 5) came to the spot and Accused-1 cut the deceased on the neck, while A2 cut the deceased with an Aruval on the mouth, while Accused Nos. 3 to 5 held him preventing his escape. At 12.45 a.m., the intervening night between 3.8.2005 and 4.8.2005, appellants along with 3 acquitted accused (Accused Nos. 3 to 5) came to the spot and Accused-1 cut the deceased on the neck, while A2 cut the deceased with an Aruval on the mouth, while Accused Nos. 3 to 5 held him preventing his escape. (iii) On hearing the sound at about 12.45a.m., P.W.1 came and saw his father found lying with cut injuries on the left side of the neck and also on the mouth. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the hospital along with his father with P.W.2 and P.W.3 where the Doctor declared that the deceased was already dead. (iv) P.W.1 went to Thirupananthal Police Station and lodged Exhibit P-1 Complaint at 5.00 a.m., on 4.8.2005. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, P.W.12 Inspector of Police registered case in Crime No. 231 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, and 302 of the IPC. 4. P.W.12 had taken up investigation. The Inspector of Police had seen the occurrence place at 6.30 a.m., and prepared Exhibit P-2 Observation Mahazar and seized blood stained earth (M.O.1), sample earth (M.O.2) under Exhibit P-3 Seizure Mahazar. P.W.12 went to Thirupananthal Hospital. In the presence of panchayatdars, witnesses were examined and inquest was held on the body of the deceased Arjunan. Exhibit P-12 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. 5. Based on the requisition from the Investigating Officer, P.W.11 Dr. Meenakshi has conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Arjunan and noticed the following injuries: A deep laceration from below the angle of the mouth running across the cheek to the back of the neck, severing the ear into two just above the lobule 25 cm X 6 cm almost 'V' shaped on the left side of face fracturing the maxilla and cutting the major vessels of the neck. The shape of the wound is almost 'V' Shaped. Opining that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to major vessels of the neck, P.W.11 issued Exhibit P-9 Post-Mortem Certificate. After Post-mortem, the blood-stained shirt of the deceased (M.O.3) was seized. 6. On 4.8.2005 at 12.00 noon, the Accused 1, 3 and 4 were arrested near Muttakudi Bus Stop and on being interrogated, Accused No. 1 had voluntarily given confessional statement. Exhibit P-4 admissible portion of the confessional. After Post-mortem, the blood-stained shirt of the deceased (M.O.3) was seized. 6. On 4.8.2005 at 12.00 noon, the Accused 1, 3 and 4 were arrested near Muttakudi Bus Stop and on being interrogated, Accused No. 1 had voluntarily given confessional statement. Exhibit P-4 admissible portion of the confessional. statement led to recovery of M.O.4 and M.O.5 Aruval under Exhibit P-5 Seizure Mahazar. Accused No. 2 was arrested on 5.8.2005 in Cholapuram Bus Stand. 7. Seized Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis. On receipt of Chemical Analysis Report and after completion of due investigation, P.W.12 filed a final report against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 109 and 149 IPC. 8. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12; marked Exhibits P-1 to 13 and produced M.Os.1 to 5. 9. The appellants/accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about incriminating evidence of circumstances. The accused denied all of them and stated that at the instigation of P.W.2, false case was foisted against them. The accused/appellants further stated that, P.W.2 Gomathi is inimical towards their family and that she has falsely implicated the appellants. 10. Upon analysis of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that at the time of occurrence P.W.2 Gomathi was very well present in the Village Thiruvalliangudi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence of P.W.2 about attack on the deceased and the overt-act of Accused 1 and 2 is cogent and trustworthy. Pointing out the inconsistencies and doubting the presence of P.W.4, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence ol P.W.4 is not worthy or acceptance. Holding that prosecution nas established guilt of Accused 1 and 2, the learned Sessions Judge convicted them under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment as aforesaid. 11. Challenging the verdict of conviction, the learned senior counsel. appearing for the appellants, Mr. A. Padmanabhan submitted that the solitary evidence of P.W.2 cannot form the basis for conviction. It was further argued that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of witnesses on the ground that the ocular evidence of the witnesses have been falsified by medical evidence. It was further argued that when eye­witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 have turned hostile, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have believed the version of P.W.2 to base conviction. It was further argued that when eye­witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 have turned hostile, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have believed the version of P.W.2 to base conviction. It was further argued that the trial Court has overlooked the tact that no blood was recovered from the bench on which the deceased Arjunan was said to be sleeping and the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants. 12. Taking us through the evidence of P.W.2 and other records, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is natural and probable and upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants and conviction warrants no intereference. 13. It was further argued that discrepancies pointed out in the scene of occurrence and non-recovery of blood from the bench would not materially affect the prosecution case. 14. The motive for the occurrence is the execution of a Will by Natesan in favour of P.W.1 and his brother, which resulted in animosity between Accused No. 2 and the deceased. The possession of lands was with A1. Accused No. 2 questioned the deceased about the execution of the Will m favour of P.W.1 and his brother. 15. P.W.2 has spoken about execution of the Will in favour of P.W.1 and his brother, which resulted in animosity between Accused Nos. 1, 2 and the deceased. The deceased and P.W.1 demanded vacant possession of the land and since Accused-1 did not handover possession, a Civil Suit was filed against A1 in Kumbakonam Court. P.W.2 has given a consistent version about the previous enmity. 16. The fact of execution of the Will by Natesan was not disputed. Even though P.W.1 has turned hostile, he has also clearly spoken that prior to two days, Second Accused questioned the deceased about allotment of shares only to P.W.1 and his brother. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence of P.W.2 as to previous enmity is strengthened by the evidence of P.W.1. Though P.W.1 has turned hostile, part of his evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were inimical towards the deceased. P.W.1 has spoken about the execution of sale and the same was being questioned by the second accused about 2 days prior to the occurrence. 17. Proof of motive heightens the probability of prosecution version. Though P.W.1 has turned hostile, part of his evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were inimical towards the deceased. P.W.1 has spoken about the execution of sale and the same was being questioned by the second accused about 2 days prior to the occurrence. 17. Proof of motive heightens the probability of prosecution version. Non-production of the Will and details about the civil case would not in any way weaken the prosecution case. Where prosecution case is based upon evidence of eye-witness, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive will not play a major role and proof of motive is only a corroborative piece of evidence. 18. P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses for the occurrence on the mid-night on 3.8.2005. P.W.1 Rajmohan - the son of the deceased and P.W.3 Kalaiselvi, the second wife of the deceased have turned hostile. P.W.4 Santharaman is the brother of P.W.2 Gomathi. Pointing out that P.W.4's statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. was not received m the Court within a reasonable time, the learned Additional Sessions Judge doubted the presence of P.W.4 in Thiruvalliangudi at the time of occurrence. Pointing out certain inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.4, the learned Additional sessions Judge, disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4. 19. The case of prosecution hinges upon P.W.2 has solitary testimony. In her evidence, P.W.2 has stated that on 3.8.2005, the deceased Arjunan and P.W.2 came to Thiruvalliangudi to perform obsequies of Chinnaponnu, wife of Natesan. After completion of the ceremony, Arjunan was sleeping on the bench in front of Natesan's house under the pandal and P.W.2 has taken bed in the floor nearby. P.W.2 has further stated that in the mid-night at 12.45, Accused No. 1 along with other accused came there questioning the deceased as to filing of the civil case against him and by so questioning the deceased, Accused No. 1 cut the deceased on the left side of the neck below the left ear with Aruval and Accused No. 2 also inflicted cut injury on the mouth of the deceased. The acquitted Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased and prevented his movement. 20. The acquitted Accused Nos. 3 to 5 are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased and prevented his movement. 20. Attacking credibility of P.W.2, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that P.W.2 was the kept mistress and while so, family members would not have allowed P.W.2 to go the village Thiruvalliangudi to participate in the family function i.e. performance of obsequies of Chinnaponnu and therefore, P.W.2's presence in the village Thiruvalliangui is highly doubtful and therefore, her evidence is not believable. 21. There is no force in the arguments advanced doubting the presence of P.W.2 in the village on 3.8.2005. Though P.W.1 has turned hostile, in his evidence, P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the presence ot P.W.I and that after the occurrence he along with P.W.s. 2 and 3 took, the deceased and went to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding the presence of P.W.2 reads as under in para 2 3 of the ludgment of the Trial Court: Even in the cross examination, he has deposed as follows: 22. P.W.3, although turned hostile, has spoken about the presence of P.W.2 and that P.W.2 had accompanied them to the hospital. P.W.5 Rajangam had also deposed that on 3.8.2005,the deceased and P.W. I came to Thiruvalliangudi Village. The presence of P.W.2 in Thiruvalliangudi Village is proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.5. Considering the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5, we are of the considered view that the presence of P.W.2 cannot be doubted. 23. Mere fact that a witness was declared hostile does not make him unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether. Not-withstanding hostility of P.Ws.1 and 3, their evidence strengthens prosecution version as to enmity, time and place of occurrence etc. Even though being P.W.1 declared hostile, his evidence can still be believed in regard to part of a testimony i.e. as to enmity, presence of P.W.2, time and place of occurrence. 24. Main argument advanced by the appellants is that the Trial Court was not right in relying upon the solitary testimony of P.W.2 to find the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of committing the offence. It was turtner argued that when occurrence was in the mid-night and when related witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.3 have turned hostile, the Trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 who was a resident of Thirupananthal. 1 and 2 guilty of committing the offence. It was turtner argued that when occurrence was in the mid-night and when related witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.3 have turned hostile, the Trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 who was a resident of Thirupananthal. It was further argued that P.W.2 being a kept Mistress was not accepted by the family members and therefore, there is every reason that P.W.2 would have falsely implicated the accused and while so, it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the solitary version of P.W.2. 25. The evidence of P.W.2 was assailed contending that she was a kept Mistress and she was inimical towards the family members of the accused and therefore, a false case was foisted against the accused at the instigation of P.W.2. The relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. Whether the witness is an interested witness and interested in securing the conviction of the accused is a matter of ascertainment from the facts and circumstances of the case. Though arguments were advanced doubting the presence of P.W.2 in the village on 3.8.2005 as noted earlier, her presence in the village is clearly proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5. Merely, because P.W.2 was a kept Mistress of the deceased, it cannot be said that P.W.2 had developed grudge against the accused. The appellants are not contending that the evidence of P.W.2 is tainted because of her interestedness. 26. Plurality of evidence is not a necessity of law in order to prove the prosecution case. What is to be examined is whether the testimony of a single witness radiates the confidence or not and the Courts can very well base conviction believing the prosecution version on the single testimony of a witness. The prime consideration is whether it will be safe to place reliance on the testimony of a solitary witness. 27. We have also tested the evidence of P.W.2 for its consistencies with account of other witnesses. So far as the light aspect, from Exhibit P-11 Plan and Exhibit P-2 Observation Manazar, it is seen that in the scene of occurrence there was a light post at the time of preparation of Exhibit P-2 Observation Mahazar on 4.8.2005 at 6.00 a.m.,. P.W.12 Investigating Officer noticed that Tubelight was burning. So far as the light aspect, from Exhibit P-11 Plan and Exhibit P-2 Observation Manazar, it is seen that in the scene of occurrence there was a light post at the time of preparation of Exhibit P-2 Observation Mahazar on 4.8.2005 at 6.00 a.m.,. P.W.12 Investigating Officer noticed that Tubelight was burning. P.W.8 Wireman of the TNEB at Thiruppanandal Power Station was also examined to speak about the fact that on the night of 3.8.2005, there was no power failure in Thiruppanandal. P.W.2 who was also sleeping nearby had sufficient light to identify the assailants. 28. Assailing the evidence of P.W.2, it was contended that there is a material variation between the version of P.W.2 and the place of occurrence. Investigating Officer's evidence shows that there was no bloodstains found on the bench, whereas in Exhibit P-2, Observation Mahazar, it was noted that bloodstains was found only on the floor i.e. below the cot. No bloodstain was found on bench/cot where the deceased was lying. P.W.2 has stated that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 caused injuries to the deceased when he was lying on bench. It was, therefore, argued that bloodstains were found only on the floor and the fact that no bloodstains were found on the bench/cot would seriously affect the credibility of P.W.2 and the prosecution version as to the scene of occurrence. Elaborately, considering this point. in paragraph 31 of the Judgment, the learned Sessions Judge observed that after wordy altercation, the deceased might have woken up from sleep and got up from the bench. On the occurrence, in her evidence, P.W.2 has stated about prior conversation between Accused No. 1 and the deceased, which would clearly indicate that the occurrence had taken place while the deceased woke up from sleeping. Pointing out the variation between P.W.2's evidence about the exact place of occurrence where the deceased was lying/sleeping at the time of occurrence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that as the variation would not impeach the credibility of P.W.2 and it would not go to the root of the orosecution case. In our considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in finding that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies cannot be a ground to reject P.W.2's version. 29. In our considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in finding that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies cannot be a ground to reject P.W.2's version. 29. The Trial Court tested the evidence of P.W.2 for its consistencies and the Trial Court formed the view that the evidence of P.W.2 read as a whole has a ring of the truth. Once the Trial Court has formed that impression, we do not find any reason to take a different view. 30. Re-Contention as to discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence. As noted earlier, in her evidence, P.W.2 has stated that Accused-1 cut the deceased on the left side of the neck below the ear. Accused No. 2 cut the deceased on the mouth. Thus from the ocular evidence as spoken to by P.W.2 it is clear that there were two blows. wnen the Post-Mortem Doctor's evidence is perused, she has noted deep laceration below the angle of the mouth running across the cheek to the back of the neck, severing the ear into two just above the lobule 25 x 6 c.m. almost 'V shaped on the left side of face. The Post-Mortem Doctor has seen the 'V shaped cut injury on the face from mouth extending to left ear lobes measuring 25 X 6 cm... P.W.11 Post-Mortem Doctor has also given the shape of the injuries in the face in Exhibit P-9 Post-Mortem Certificate. According to P.W.11, 'V' shape injury was found on the face from the mouth till left ear. Post-Mortem Certificate does not show two cut injuries and says only one injury right from the mouth till the left ear lobe. 31. Taking us through the evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of Post-Mortem Doctor (P.W.11) and Post-Mortem Certificate (Exhibit P-9), the learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per the ocular evidence, there were two blows whereas the Post-Mortem Doctor (P.W.11) has noted only one injury and such variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence would raise serious doubts about the prosecution case. The above contention does not merit acceptance, P.W.11 has clearly stated that if there are more than one blows, irregular laceration is also possible. P.W.11 has noted only deep laceration and the shape of the injury is also mentioned in Exhibit P-9 as 'V' shaped, it would clearly indicate that two injuries were inflicted on the deceased. The above contention does not merit acceptance, P.W.11 has clearly stated that if there are more than one blows, irregular laceration is also possible. P.W.11 has noted only deep laceration and the shape of the injury is also mentioned in Exhibit P-9 as 'V' shaped, it would clearly indicate that two injuries were inflicted on the deceased. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, if really only one blow was given, 'V' shape injury was not possible. Even though two injuries were not noticed, the shape of the injury is clearly indicative that there were two blows which is in consonance with the ocular evidence. 32. For the sake of arguments, assuming that there is such laceration, medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is trite law that oral evidence of the eye-witness cannot be discarded based on the opinion evidence. 33. P.W.2 is a kept mistress of the deceased Arjunan. On behalf of the appellants, it was mainly argued that when P.W.1 and P.W.3 have turned hostile, it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the solitary version of P.W.2. As discussed earlier, we have endorse the views of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the evidence of P.W.2 is a ring of the truth. Having got the property by way of Will, because of close relationship with the accused P.W.1 and P.W.3 might have turned hostile. The hostility of P.W.1 and P.W.3 would not affect the core of the prosecution case. The solitary version of P.W.2 being trustworthy, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of causing the death of the deceased Arjunan. 34. The conviction of the appellants 1 and 2 was attacked contending that when the version of P.W.2 was not accepted in respect of A3 to A5, her version of evidence ought to have been disbelieved in respect of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also. As held by the Supreme Court in 2008 AIR SCW 5715, the maxim, "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India, The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances. it is for the Court to sift grain from the chaff. Since no overt-act was attributed to A3 to A5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charges. it is for the Court to sift grain from the chaff. Since no overt-act was attributed to A3 to A5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charges. Acquittal of A3 to A5 cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of P.W.2 insofar as the Accused Nos. 1 and 2. 35. Upon analysis of evidence and after carefully going through the judgment of the Trial Court, we are of the considered view that based upon the evidence of P.W.2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right m convicting the appellants/A1 and A2 under Section 302 IPC. The conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellants cannot be interfered with. 36. In the result, conviction of the appellants/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 m S.C. No. 256 of 2007 dated 22.2.2008 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed upon them are confirmed and this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.