JUDGMENT (1) On 6th September 1993 at about 6. 30 p. m. there was an explosion of a bomb planted inside a passenger bus known as "sri Ganesh" near digapahandi Bus Stand. Consequent upon such explosion one innocent passenger lost his life, another passenger lost both of his legs and about twelve passengers sustained grievous injuries and some of them became deaf. On the basis of an FIR lodged by P. W. 12, the conductor of the bus, the Officer -in -charge of Digapahandi P. S. registered a P. S. case which was subsequently converted to g. R. Case No. 186/1993 of the Court of j. M. F. C., Digapahandi and started investigation. The incident was intimated to the police headquarters and within hours a Scientific Team was deputed to the spot. They collected insulated electrical conductors, broken battery pieces, jute pieces, broken tin pieces, half burnt resin pieces and other articles from the spot of occurrence/explosion. Photographs of the damaged bus were also taken. (2) According to the prosecution case, the bus, "sri Ganesh" bearing registration No. OAG-7959 was travelling from the village jirango to Berhampur via Digapahandi. It reached Digapahandi Bus Stand at about 6. 00 p. m. and several passengers alighted from the bus to take tea. After some time the driver and conductor, who had also got down to take tea, returned and made preparation to leave. The driver started the bus and all passengers got into the bus. At that juncture a explosion took place inside the bus thereby causing serious bleeding injuries on the person of the passengers travel-ling in the bus, some of the passengers also became unconscious. One Sarat Ch. Naik sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the M. K. C. G. Medical College-Hospital for treatment, but then on the way he succumbed. Pradeep Kumar Brahma, P. W. 20, sustained grievous injuries and his legs had to be amputated below the knee. Many other passengers also received serious injuries. In course of investigation Police got the clue and arrested the accused-appellant. It is alleged that some live bombs were also seized and were sent for examination. The accused-appellant while in Police custody confessed his guilt and pursuant to his confession, different materials for preparation of bombs were recovered from his house and the same tallied with the remnants of the exploded bombs. It is alleged that some live bombs were also seized and were sent for examination. The accused-appellant while in Police custody confessed his guilt and pursuant to his confession, different materials for preparation of bombs were recovered from his house and the same tallied with the remnants of the exploded bombs. The injured persons were treated by doctors and post-mortem of the dead persons was conducted. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Sections 286, 337, 338, 427 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances act. After commitment the Sessions Case being S. C. No. 24/1994 (S. C. No. 21/94 g. D. C.) was tried by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. (3) To substantiate their case the prosecution got examined as many as twenty eight witnesses. Out of them P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were travelling in the bus as passengers, when the explosion took place near digapahandi Bus Stand. They have vividly described the occurrence and had sustained grievous injuries. P. W. 7, was the doctor who had treated several passengers, who had received grievous injuries in the explosion. The injury report furnished by him were marked as Exts. 1 to 14. P. W. 8 was another doctor and had also examined some of the injured persons. The injury reports furnished by him were marked as Exts. 15 to 19. P. W. 9 was also a doctor, who had treated several passengers and the injury certificates granted by him were marked as Exts. 21 to 26. P. W. 10 was the Scientific Officer of DFSL, chhatrapur. He conducted investigation and collected the remnants of the exploded bombs which were marked as M. Os. 1 to IV. He had also collected several other materials. P. W. 11 was the doctor who conducted autopsy of the deceased, Sarat Ch. Naik. The post-mortem report was marked as Ext. 30. P. W. 12 was the conductor of the bus and had lodged the FIR. P. W. 13 was the helper of the bus. P. W. 14 was the truck driver, who was examined to prove motive. P. W. 15 was the seizure, witness in whose presence Police led by the accused to recover explosive materials. P. W. 16 was also witness to the seizure. P. W. 13 was the helper of the bus. P. W. 14 was the truck driver, who was examined to prove motive. P. W. 15 was the seizure, witness in whose presence Police led by the accused to recover explosive materials. P. W. 16 was also witness to the seizure. P. W. 17 was the Sarpanch of chheligada Grama Panchayat. P. W. 18 was also a seizure witness. P. W. 19 was a passenger in the bus. P. W. 20 was the injured who lost his legs, P. Ws. 21 and 22 were the passengers of the bus, who sustained injuries. P. W. 23 was the Police Constable, who identified the dead body and took the body for post-mortem. P. W. 24 was the Reserve sub-Inspector, who had sent the injured persons to the Hospital. P. W. 25 was a Police Sergeant, who recovered three live bombs, and defused the same. He also recovered other incriminating materials from the spot. His report is marked as Ext. 42. P. W. 26 was the A. S. I, of Police attached to digapahandi P. S., who accompanies P. W. 24 to the spot after the occurrence and sent 28 injured passengers of the bus to M. K. C. G. Medical College-Hospital for treatment. He also conducted the inquest over the deadbody, vide. Ext. 31. P. W. 27 was the o. I. C., Digapahandi P. S. and was the Investigating Officer of the case. P. W. 28 was the Asst. Surgeon, who treated one of the passengers. (4) The plea of the accused-appellant is complete denial. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. it was stated that he had never travelled in the bus at any time and the alleged occurrence was not known to him. It is further stated that the police have recovered nothing at his residence and the case has been filed out of grudge. According to the accused he was present on the alleged date of occurrence at chheligada and came to the village only on the next date when the Police arrested him. In support of his case he got examined a witness. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary in extenso, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no motive on the part of the accused appellant to commit the crime. In support of his case he got examined a witness. After discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary in extenso, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no motive on the part of the accused appellant to commit the crime. Relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 7, 8 and 20, who were passengers in the bus and sustained injuries. Ext. 29, Ext. 7 and other materials came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused and convicted the accused for commission of offence under sections 286, 337, 338, 427 and 302 of the indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. After hearing the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and did not propose to pass any other sentences for other offences proved in the case. The said judgment and order of conviction is assailed in this appeal mainly on the ground that in the absence of any eye-witness to the occurrence and as the circumstantial evidence are based only on surmises and conjectures, learned 1st Addl. Sessions judge should have held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge and it is a fit case where the accused-appellant should be acquitted. (5) According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the passengers (P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 20), who have been examined by the prosecution, do not breath a word against the involvement of the accused-appellant and as such their evidence was of no help to the prosecution case. P. W. 19, who was a passenger had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. Similarly P. W. 20, another passenger, had stated that in the absence of T. I. parade he could not identify the culprit. P. W. 22, the passenger who lost his father in the alleged explosion and had also sustained bodily injuries; stated that his father was occupying the window side seat on the 3rd row behind the driver from Dengaosta. Thus, according to Mr. Mishra, the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant was occupying the window seat in the 3rd row of the bus cannot be accepted. (6) Criticizing the evidence of P. Ws. Thus, according to Mr. Mishra, the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant was occupying the window seat in the 3rd row of the bus cannot be accepted. (6) Criticizing the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13,i. e. the conductor and helper of the bus. Mr. Mishra submitted that no conviction can be based on the strength of the said evidence as both the witnesses have not specifically said that the accused-appellant has committed any crime. According to Mr. Mishra, reading of the entire evidence of the witnesses at best may create some suspicion with regard to involvement of the accused, but then suspicion cannot be the basis for conviction. In support of such statement Mr. Mishra relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dasari siva Prasad Reddy v. The Public prosecutor, High Court of A. P., reported in (2004)29 OCR (SC) 229 : (2004 Cri LJ 4868) and in the case of Mousam Singha Roy v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2003) 26 OCR (SC) 413. It is submitted that, between "may be true" and "must be true", there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the said distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. In the case at hand, the prosecution had totally failed to establish their allegations levelled against the accused-appellant and it is a fit case, where, having regard to the available evidence, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused-appellant and he may be acquitted from the charges. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the order of conviction and sentence. According to him learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge had considered the evidence in its proper perspective and ho fault can be found in the conclusion arrived at by him arid the order of conviction warrants no interference. (7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court being the final Court of facts and law, once again meticulously and consciously went through the evidence, both oral and documentary. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a bomb was planted in the bus ("sri Ganesh") bearing regn. No. OAG-7959 and the same exploded at Digapahandi on 6th September, 1993. P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 21 and 22 were passengers in the said bus on the unfortunate day. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a bomb was planted in the bus ("sri Ganesh") bearing regn. No. OAG-7959 and the same exploded at Digapahandi on 6th September, 1993. P. Ws. 1 to 6 and 21 and 22 were passengers in the said bus on the unfortunate day. In their deposition they have clearly narrated about the explosion. All of them have sustained grievous injuries and, carried to M. K. C G. Medical College-Hospital and were treated by doctors. Some of them have lost their hearing capacity. P. W. 20, Pradeep kumar Brahma, Principal of a College, was travelling in the bus and sustained grievous injuries. In his deposition he had clearly stated that a person resembling the accused was sitting in the same seat of the bus and kept his bag on the floor of the bus near his legs. He had talked to the accused-appellant In the explosion both his legs were severely damaged and amputated as would be evident from Ext. 15. P. Ws. 7v 8 and 9 were the three doctors, who had examined and treated the injured persons The injury reports submitted by them have been duly marked as Exts. 1 to 15. Apart from the aforesaid injured persons, the two main witnesses. who have witnessed the explosion and have direct knowledge are P. W. 12, debendra Kumar Patnaik, the conductor of the bus, and P. W. 13, Kora Gouda, the helper of the bus. According to P. W. 12 the accused-appellant, who was known to him boarded the bus about half kilometer after chheligada bus shop. He was holding a white colour jhula bag on his shoulder and another plastic hand bag of green and yellow colour in his hand. He boarded the bus from the rear door. Near Kamalpur one of the passengers, who was sitting on the 3rd seat behind the driver on the right side adjoining the window got down. Subsequently, the accused-appellant came and occupied the said seat. P. W. 12 noticed that the accused-appellant held the jhula bag on his shoulder, but kept the plastic bag under his seat, near his legs. At Digapahandi bus stand the bus stopped for some time so as to enable the passengers to get down and refresh themselves. After sometime, P. W. 12 came to the bus and decided to proceed. P. W. 12 noticed that the accused-appellant held the jhula bag on his shoulder, but kept the plastic bag under his seat, near his legs. At Digapahandi bus stand the bus stopped for some time so as to enable the passengers to get down and refresh themselves. After sometime, P. W. 12 came to the bus and decided to proceed. At that juncture the accused appellant, it is submitted, got down from the bus carrying the jhula bag only. He paid Rs. 10/ -. to the conductor and left. P. W. 12 further deposed that the accused appellant while boarding the bus had intimated him that he will get down at Gokarnapur and as such he was under the impression that the accused-appellant shall again return to the bus. According to the said witness the driver sat down in his seat and in order to hasten the passengers, who had got down, he started the engine. At that relevant time the conductor, P. W. 12, was standing at a distance and was talking to some of the passengers. All of a sudden there was an explosion in the bus and the passengers, who were inside,sustained grievous injuries and one of the passenger was thrown out. The said witness has been cross-examined at length, but then this Court finds that nothing could be elucidated to disbelieve the statement made by him in his examination in chief. (8) The evidence of P. W. 12 is corroborated by P. W. 13, the helper of the bus. He had also noticed that the accused-appellant boarded the bus with a jhula bag on his shoulder and another bag in his hand. He had seen the accused-appellant sitting on the 3rd row seat behind the driver on the right side near the window. He also saw the accused-appellant getting down from the bus with the jhula bag only. Reading of the entire evidence of P. W. 13 reveals that he has corroborated the statements made by the conductor, P. W. 12 and there is no reason to disbelieve this two witnesses. P. W. 20, was another independent witness. He was the Principal of a College and a respectable person: He was occupying one of the seats in the 3rd row behind the driver. In his deposition he had clearly stated that a person resembling the accused-appellant was sitting next to him at the window side. P. W. 20, was another independent witness. He was the Principal of a College and a respectable person: He was occupying one of the seats in the 3rd row behind the driver. In his deposition he had clearly stated that a person resembling the accused-appellant was sitting next to him at the window side. After the bus arrived at digapahandi, he along with other passengers got down to take tea Some time thereafter he came back to verify as to whether (who) occupied his seat and found the person sitting in the window side seat (accused)was fiddling with his bag which was kept near his leg. After taking tea he returned and found that the said person has got down and wanted to sit in the window side seat, but then another passenger expressed his desire to sit there and as such he again sat in the middle of the three seater. After two to three minutes there was a huge explosion near the floor of his seat and he received grievous injuries. It is pertinent to mention here that both the legs of P. W. 20 were amputated and the person who was sitting in the widow side seat lost his life. (9) P. W. 21, Santosh Kumar Naik, was travelling as a passenger along with his father Sri Sarat Ch. Naik. He was sitting in the front row seat just behind the driver. His father was sitting on the window side seat on the 3rd row behind the driver. At digapahandi they got down from the bus, took tea and then returned back to their respective seats. When the bus was about to leave, there was huge explosion inside the bus. He sustained injuries and so also his father. On the way to the hospital, his father breathed his last. P. Ws. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are police personnels and from their evidence, it appears that they arrived at the spot after the explosion. (10) In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer on being led by the accused-appellant searched a Tank named "khajuri bandha" and seized some explosive materials in presence of P. W. 15, under the seizure list Exts. 34, 35 and 36. (10) In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer on being led by the accused-appellant searched a Tank named "khajuri bandha" and seized some explosive materials in presence of P. W. 15, under the seizure list Exts. 34, 35 and 36. Though P. W. 15 in his evidence admitted about the seizure of the materials, but then denied the confession said to have been made by the accused-appellant before the Police in his presence. In presence of P. W. 16 the Police seized a plastic bag and other materials which were marked as Exts. 34, 35 and 36. Though the seizure is admitted the said witness also denied about any statement said to have been made by the accused-appellant before the police. P. W. 7 identified the accused-appellant as a Peon of Chheligada High School. He was a witness to the seizure of a bomb in a "tin diba", gun powder vide seizure list Ext. 37. P. W. 18, is another seizure witness. It is apt to state that all the seizure witnesses, i. e. P. Ws. 16, 17, 18 and 19 resiled from their statements made before the Police, but, then their evidence cannot be discarded in to to. Law is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright, but a court should be slow to act upon the testimony of such a witness and it should normally look for corroboration. In the case at hand, as would be apparent, several material objective like unexplored bombs, gun powder and other equipments which are used in manufacture of bombs were seized from the tank and the house of the accused. The seizure witnesses have signed the seizure list. A careful reading of their depositions reveal that they have not disputed the seizure of the materials, but then they only denied the fact with regard to the confession alleged to have been made by the accused-appellant before the police in their presence. The only other witness which needs to be considered is P. W. 14, Santosh Kumar sabat, the driver of another truck. In his deposition he had stated that the accused-appellant, who was used to drinks, tried to travel in the Dalla of the Truck, but then on being refused he became annoyed and threatened that he will see Podamari people. The only other witness which needs to be considered is P. W. 14, Santosh Kumar sabat, the driver of another truck. In his deposition he had stated that the accused-appellant, who was used to drinks, tried to travel in the Dalla of the Truck, but then on being refused he became annoyed and threatened that he will see Podamari people. The said witness had stated that as the owner of the bus "sri Ganesh" belong to podamari he might have caused the explosion. The evidence of said witness may not be very much relevant, but then he throws some light with regard to the motive. (11) After going through the evidence, both oral and documentary, this Court finds that out of twenty eight prosecution witnesses, only some have categorically deposed with regard to involvement of the accused-appellant with the alleged crime. But then it is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. It is clear that the Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither Section 134 of the Evidence Act nor any other provision mandates that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against an accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is therefore open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses, if it is not satisfied about the quality of the evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of lack of eye-witnesses or paucity of witnesses, has no force and must be negatived. As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. In other words one credible witness outweighs the testimony of number of other witnesses. Of course there may be exception to the said rule, but the same depends on the facts of each case, (see Namdeo v. State of maharashtra reported in (2007) 14scc 150 : (2007 Cri LJ 1819)). In other words one credible witness outweighs the testimony of number of other witnesses. Of course there may be exception to the said rule, but the same depends on the facts of each case, (see Namdeo v. State of maharashtra reported in (2007) 14scc 150 : (2007 Cri LJ 1819)). (12) Scrutinizing the entire evidence on the touchstone of the settled principle of law enumerated above, this Court finds that there are enough materials to connect the accused-appellant with the heinous crime of planting a live bomb in a passenger bus and getting down from the same before the bomb explodes, thereby causing death of one person and grievous injuries on several other passengers. This Court is also satisfied that sufficient evidence for sustaining conviction are available and no reasonable doubt is left in our mind with regard to involvement of the accused-appellant in the alleged crime. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence. The Criminal Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.