JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal under section 374 Criminal Procedure Code is preferred to question the correctness of the judgment dated 03rd November 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, district-Churu in Sessions Case No.02/2007 (08/2004), State v. Parwat Singh , convicting the accused appellants - Parwat Singh s/o Hanuman Singh, Rajput, r/o Bamaniya, PS Salasar, Teshil-Sujangarh, district-Churu for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment whereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 18.9.2003 complainant Narendra Singh (PW14) submitted a written report (Ex.P19) at Police Station, Salasar that his two elder sisters-Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar and Suman Kanwar and Prem Kanwar-daughter of his uncle Hanuman Singh are married in village Bamaniya of Teshil Sujangarh. Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanawr and Suman Kanwar were married around 08 years ago. 4. It is further stated in the report Ex.P19 that Sayar Kanwar, who was married to Dara Singh s/o Hanuman Singh, who was in his matrimonial home at Bamaniya while Suman Kanwar had come to their house. On 15.09.2003 at around 07 O'clock Ranjeet Singh, brother of his uncle, told that Prem Kanwar has intimated on telephone from village Bamaniya that today in the morning at about 8-9 O'clock Parwat Singh, brother-in-law of Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar, gave an axe blow upon Sayar Kanwar in their house causing her severe injury, where after Sayar Kanwar has been taken to Bikaner for treatment and they should come to meet her. 5. Then complainant Narendra Singh and his brother Ranjeet Singh had talk in the house and when they told their uncle Hanuman Singh about this intimation, their uncle said that they should get assured by visiting Bamaniya and Bikaner. Thereupon, on the next day, he, Ranjeet Singh and Brijendra Singh - all three went to Bamaniya and met their other elder sister Prem Kanwar as also met with Samdar Singh, who told that on account of mutual tussle over domestic matter with Sayar Kanwar, Parwat Singh inflicted axe blow on her head and due to her suffering with severe injury, they have taken her to Bikaner for treatment. Then they returned to their village and told whole matter. On 17.9.2003 by leaving early when they went to Bikaner then it is revealed that on 16.9.2003 her sister Sayar Kanwar died at Bikaner during the course of treatment of the injury caused on her head by axe. 6. On the basis of aforesaid written report, First Information Report No.72/2003 (Ex.P20) was registered at Police Station, Salasar and investigation commenced. After due investigation, challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sujangarh, which was committed to the court of Sessions and came up before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh. Charge of offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed on 18th May 2004 against the accused-appellant Parwat Singh, who denied the allegation of commission of the crime and claimed trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution supported its case by producing 15 witnesses and exhibiting 25 documents. PW1 Samdar Singh was cited as eye-witness of the incident, PW2 Shravan Kumar, front side neighbour, reached to site immediately after the incident and PW3 Smt. Santosh came to the spot immediately after incident and she gave care to injured Sayar Kanwar. PW8 Prem Kanwar, PW9 Roop Singh, PW11 Ladhu Singh and PW12 Dara Singh have not supported prosecution case and have been declared hostile. PW2 Shravan Kumar and PW3 Santosh have also been declared hostile and have not corroborated infliction of injury by accused-appellant Parwat Singh. 8. PW4 Mahaveer Prasad was cited as witness of morgue, who prepared memo of situation of dead body (Ex.P8) and Panchnama (Ex.P9) and seized cloths etc from dead body (Ex.P10). PW6 Raghuveer Singh was cited as Malkhana incharge. PW7 Chhagan Singh was cited as witness of preparation of site plan (Ex.P1) and memo Ex.P2 regarding taking samples of blood-stained & simple soil from the site. PW10 Vijay Singh was cited as carrier of Ex.P15 to the FSL, Jodhpur, receipt whereof Ex.P16. PW13 Ranjeet Singh accompanied complainant Narendra Singh (PW14). PW15 Pushpendra Jhajhariya, Station House Officer of Police Station, Salasar was the Investigation Officer. 9. The statement of accused-person was recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused-appellant negated the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and contended that he has been falsely implicated, he was in the school and villagers called him and said that Sayar Kanwar fell from Camel-cart and has suffered fatal injury on her head and died. 9. The statement of accused-person was recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused-appellant negated the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and contended that he has been falsely implicated, he was in the school and villagers called him and said that Sayar Kanwar fell from Camel-cart and has suffered fatal injury on her head and died. In defence, however, no witness was produced. Ex.D1 - covering letter to the FSL, Jodhpur was produced by the accused-appellant as documentary evidence. 10. PW5 Dr P.N. Mathur, Medical Jurist at PBM Hospital, Bikaner proved per postmortem report (Ex.P11) of deceased Smt. Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar, who died on 16.9.2003 8:15AM. As per postmortem report Ex.P11, following injuries were found on the person of deceased Smt. Sayar Kanwar: (i) Stitched wound on the head, 20 cms, having 19 stitches - on Lt side forehead in scalp hair, Lt front parietal and Rt parietal, original injury was extended by surgery; (ii) Abrasion 2.5 x 0.5 cms Rt shoulder, supernal, veritcal; (iii) Abrasion 5 x 1.2 cms on chest, Lt side lower ⅓rd frontal and vertically outer. On the head, blood was found clotted underneath frontal half of the scalp; bone pieces involving part of both frontal and both parietal missing in area of 10 cm x 7 cms and surgical packing is present. From posterior part of this a commutated fracture is extending into Rt parietal region. There is layer of extra dural haematoma 5 x 1 x 0.1 cms. The brain in Lt fronto parietal region is missing in an area of 4 x 1 x 0.2 cms. There is sub-dural haematoma. There are tiny pinhead pointsize intracerebral hemorrhage in Lt fronto-parietal region. Brain is congested and oldemated. Cause of death is coma due to head injury, antemortem and self-sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The opinion regarding weapon of offence used (injury on scalp) can not be given. The injuries No.2 and 3 are caused by blunt object. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while relying upon testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused-appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the terms mentioned herein above, vide impugned judgment dated 03rd November 2007. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal has been filed. 12. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while relying upon testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused-appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the terms mentioned herein above, vide impugned judgment dated 03rd November 2007. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal has been filed. 12. In the appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating and relying upon the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant is innocent, prosecution witnesses have given contradictory version, link of the chain of circumstantial evidence is missing, delay in filing FIR is unexplained, said eye-witness Samdar Singh (PW1) did not inform to Police or to any other person, his presence was not shown at the place of incident as per Exs.P8 & P9, the place where incident happened and place from PW1 alleged to have seen the incident is not possible, recovery of weapon of offence (axe) by Police is in violation of section 29 of the Evidence Act and the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive for commission of the alleged crime by accused appellant and he has been falsely implicated. It is also contended that actually deceased Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar fell from Camel-cart and suffered fatal injury on her head, causing her death. It is further contended that it is reported in the postmortem report Ex.P11 that no opinion can be given about weapon of offence used for injury on the scalp (head) and the Doctor who conducted the postmortem was not produced by the prosecution. It is contended that learned trial judge erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction solely on the basis of evidence of said eyewitness PW1 Samdar Singh and hence, impugned conviction and sentence to the accused-appellant is liable to be set aside by this Court. 13. While opposing the appeal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence produced by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor further vehemently submitted that delay in filing the First Information Report has been explained properly and morgue FIR No.17/2003 was lodged. In fact, learned trial Judge has elaborately considered each of the prosecution and defence evidence, arguments from both the sides and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor further vehemently submitted that delay in filing the First Information Report has been explained properly and morgue FIR No.17/2003 was lodged. In fact, learned trial Judge has elaborately considered each of the prosecution and defence evidence, arguments from both the sides and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. Hence, present appeal of the accused appellant lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through entire evidence adduced by both the parties in the matter as also the record of the trial court. 15. It is clear from the report Ex.P19 that on 18th September 2003, Narendra Singh (PW14) submitted that his sister Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar was married in village Bamaniya to Dara Singh s/o Hanuman Singh. On 15th September 2003 Ranjeet Singh, his uncle's brother, told that Prem Kanwar (PW8) has intimated that today at about 9 O'clock Parwat Singh (accused-appellant) - 'dewar' (brother-in-law) of Sayar Kanwar, inflicted severe kulhari (axe) blow upon Sayar Kanwar and she has been taken to Bikaner hospital for treatment. Thereupon, on the next day Narendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Brijendra Singh went to village Bamaniya and met Prem Kanwar and Samdar Singh (PW1), who told them about the incident. On 16th September 2003 her sister Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar died at Bikaner hospital during the course of treatment of the injury caused on her head by kulhari (axe) by the accused-appellant. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, in our opinion, delay in lodging First Information Report is explained satisfactorily and not fatal to the prosecution case. Admittedly, morgue FIR has been registered by Police and PW4 Mahaveer Prasad prepared some memos also. 17. Admittedly, present case rests upon the evidence of eyewitness Samdar Singh (PW1). Other important witnesses viz. PW2 Sharavan Kumar, PW3 Santosh Kanwar - sister of accused-appellant, PW8 Prem Kanwar - sister of deceased Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar, PW9 Roop Singh, PW11 Ladhu Singh and PW12 Dara Singh have turned hostile. It is now well settled that what is necessary for proving prosecution case is not quantity but quality of the evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based upon solitary evidence of a witness, if it inspires confidence. 18. It is now well settled that what is necessary for proving prosecution case is not quantity but quality of the evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based upon solitary evidence of a witness, if it inspires confidence. 18. In our opinion, evidence of PW1 Samdar Singh appears to be truthful, reliable and acceptable. Mere fact that other witnesses have turned hostile will not adversely affect the prosecution case. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for proving of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness but, at the same time, such a course can be adopted if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with the probabilities and inspire confidence. By this standard when the prosecution case rests mainly upon sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be fully reliable. In other words, law requires that evidence is to be weighted and not counted. In this view of the matter, it is quality of the evidence rather than quantity, which is material. 19. It is also settled law that corroboration is not rule of law but one of cautions, as an assurance. The conviction could be made on the basis of testimony of solitary witness. The occasion for the presence of the witness at the time of occurrence, opportunity to witness the crime, normal conduct of the witness to the victim, his predisposition towards the accused; are some of the circumstances to be kept in view to weight and accept ocular evidence of a witness. It is not quantum of the evidence but is quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance to the court for acceptance. 20. In the present case, which rests upon evidence of PW1 Samdar Singh, who deposed in the court in unambiguous terms that on 15th September 2003 at about 9 O'clock Parwat Singh (accused-appellant) inflicted axe (kulhari) blow on the head of Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar. The statement of PW1 Samdar Singh does not suffer from any infirmity and has withstood the test of cross-examination also. 21. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 Samdar Singh. The statement of PW1 Samdar Singh does not suffer from any infirmity and has withstood the test of cross-examination also. 21. We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 Samdar Singh. Evidence of this witness, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does inspire confidence and faith because it is corroborated by other prosecution evidence, medical evidence, recovery of axe and FSL report; therefore, we are firmly of the view that it stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that Smt. Sayar Kanwar @ Sugan Kanwar has died on account of injury on her head inflicted by the accused-appellant Parwat Singh. 22. In view of the evidence of eye-witness Samdar Singh (PW1), evidence of Narendra Singh (PW14) who lodged First Information Report in this case after death of Sayar Kanwar @ Sugarn Kanwar during treatment at Bikaner hospital, evidence of recovery of weapon axe, medical evidence, FSL report, evidence gather during investigation and other prosecution evidence discussed above and also considered by the court below in the impugned judgment dated 03rd November 2007; commission of offence punishable under section 302 IPC is established beyond any shadow of doubt against the accused-appellant. 23. In the totality of prosecution evidence, facts & circumstance of this case, we do not find anything wrong in the finding given by the trial court and found that the learned trial judge was fully justified in holding the accused-appellant guilty of committing the alleged offence and sentencing him therefor accordingly. In our opinion, defence version deposed by the accused-appellant himself in his statements under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is not trustworthy looking to facts, circumstances and evidence placed by the prosecution on record. 24. In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence therefor imposed upon the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 03rd November 2007 passed by the trial court is legal, just and proper, based on reliable evidence produced by the prosecution and the material on record. 25. Consequently, present appeal filed by the accused appellant Parwat Singh fails and the same is hereby accordingly dismissed. The judgment of conviction as well as sentence, dated 03rd November 2007 passed by learned court below are affirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******