JUDGMENT Mr. Arvind Kumar, J.:- The appellants Pirthi Singh, his son Hargain and wife Banti Devi have been held guilty by the learned trial Court by dint of judgment dated 16.3.2001 for committing the murder of Randhir Singh, none-else but the brother, uncle and brother-in-law respectively of the appellants. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months has been provided to the defaulter. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that both the brothers Pirthi Singh and Randhir Singh were having their houses adjacent to each other and have joint land out of which one and a half killa was on lease with Pirthi Singh, on which a “Shisham” tree was standing. About some days ago to the occurrence in question, there was some dispute between them on the cutting of the aforesaid tree. Following it, on the evening of 21.10.1998 at about 6:30 p.m. Randhir Singh was sitting on a “Buggi” standing in front of their house, then Pirthi Singh armed with axe; his son Hargian and wife Banti Devi armed with lathis and another son Dharamvir armed with jelly after sharing common intention came there. After throwing their lathis Hargain and Banti Devi caught hold of Randhir Singh and pulled him towards the courtyard of his house; Dharamvir caught the legs of Randhir, as a result of which he fell down and in the same pasture Dharamvir, Hargain and Banti gave fists and kicks to Randhir Singh. Pirthi Singh gave an axe blow on the left side of the neck. They raised noise for help, upon which Har Narain and Nafe Singh came at the spot. Pirthi also tried to round the neck of Rohtash, but he was saved. The accused then went away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Randhir Singh died at the spot. 3. On the statement made by Rohtash case FIR No. 237 dated 21.10.1998 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered against the accused and investigated upon by Inspector Mange Ram. Blood stained earth, cloth piece and sleeper were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PJ. The dead body of Randhir was sent for the post-mortem examination, which was done by Dr. R.P. Goyal. 4. Blood stained earth, cloth piece and sleeper were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PJ. The dead body of Randhir was sent for the post-mortem examination, which was done by Dr. R.P. Goyal. 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 24.10.1998 the accused Pirthi Singh was arrested and pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him, he got recovered the axe used in the commission of the offence. On completion of usual formalities of investigations, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and forwarded against accused for his trial. 5. It is apt to mention here that Dharamvir, co-accused was found juvenile and his trial was separated from the other accused. 6. After commitment of the case, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 302 IPC against accused Pirthi Singh as well as under Section 302/ 34 IPC against all the accused. During trial, the prosecution examined HC Ram Kishan as PW1, Const. Ramesh Chand as PW2, Const. Shiv Kumar as PW3, Nafe Singh, eye witness as PW4, Dr. R.P. Goyal as PW5, ASI Satpal as PW6, Const. Ram Niwas as PW7, Const. Sukhram Pal as PW8, another eye witness Har Narain as PW9, Inspector Mange Ram, the investigating officer as PW10 and SI Dharam Singh as PW11. 7. It is apposite to mention here that Rohtash, the complainant/ eye witness could not be examined by the prosecution on account of his death. 8. The accused-appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication in the case. However, no evidence in defence was led by the accused. 9. After analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial court vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record carefully. 11. The occurrence in the instant case took place at about 6:30 p.m. and the matter was reported to the police at the police station situated about 12 Kms away from the place of occurrence, consequently FIR was registered at 9:00 p.m. of the same day. The special report reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate at about 12:30 mid night. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that Rohtash, Har Narain and Nafe Singh were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The special report reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate at about 12:30 mid night. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that Rohtash, Har Narain and Nafe Singh were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rohtash, the complainant of the case and the son of deceased Randhir Singh could not be examined due to his death. Another eye-witness namely Nafe Singh (PW4) while entering into the witness box showed hostility towards the prosecution case by saying that the accused did not commit the murder of Randhir Singh in his presence as well as in the presence of Har Narain and Rohtash. He also denied having made any statement Ex.PC to the police. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of another eye witness PW9 Har Narain, a co-villager. Now the question arises, whether the sole testimony of PW9 Har Narain can be acted upon to held the accused-appellants guilty of the murder of Randhir Singh or not? 13. In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. “It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. 14. In Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397 : JT 2003 (7) SC 270, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the similar question, observed as under:- “The legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘Evidence Act’). Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes offender would have gone unpunished. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.” 15. Thus the contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye witness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived. 16. Let us have a look at the testimony of PW9 Har Narain. He deposed that about one year and twenty days prior to recording of his statement in the Court, accused Pirthi Singh, Har Gian, Banti and Dharamvir (juvenile and tried separately), whose house is situated adjacent to the house of Randhir Singh came in front of their house where Randhir Singh was sitting on a “Buggi”. Accused Banti and Har Gian were armed with lathi, Pirthi Singh was having an axe while Dharamvir was carrying jelli. On hearing the noise made by Rohtash he and Nafe Singh rushed to the spot and saw that Har Gian and Banti caught hold of the arms of Randhir Singh and taken towards his house while Dharamvir caught hold of the legs of Randhir Singh. They entered the house of Randhir Singh and noticed that accused Pirthi Singh gave an axe blow on the neck of Randhir Singh from its sharp edged side. Pirthi Singh also tried to catch hold of Rohtash with the help of a cloth, but they get Rohtash rescued. After that the accused left the spot with their respective weapons. His testimony remained unshaken during his cross examination. A glance over his testimony leaves no manner of doubt as to the involvement of the appellant Pirthi Singh in the murder of Randhir Singh. He is not related to either of the parties and is only their neighbour. No ill-will or motive has been shown towards this witness. His presence at the spot, in no way, can be doubted being a neighbourer, 17. He is not related to either of the parties and is only their neighbour. No ill-will or motive has been shown towards this witness. His presence at the spot, in no way, can be doubted being a neighbourer, 17. The testimony of this witness is not only natural one but also corroborated with the clinching medical as well as scientific evidence on record, so far as involvement of appellant Pirthi Singh is concerned. PW5 Dr. R.P. Goyal had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Randhir Singh. He found an injury on the neck apart from two contusions one on the right knee and other one of right ankle. In his opinion the injury on the neck was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has been duly proved on record from the statements of PW10 Inspector Mange Ram and PW11 SI Dharam Singh that after the arrest Pirthi Singh suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealing of axe used in the commission of murder and consequently got recovered the weapon of offence. The said axe used in the murder was shown to PW5 Dr. R.P. Goyal and in his opinion the injury on the neck of deceased could be possible from the same. The said axe was also sent to the forensic laboratory for examination and human blood was detected thereupon as per report of the FSL Ex.PD/2. 18. So far as appellant Har Gian and Banti Devi are concerned, according to this witness Har Gian and Banti Devi gave a lathi blow each on the person of the deceased. However, the case of the prosecution, including this witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., is totally contradictory and to the effect that both of them after having thrown their lathis caught hold of Randhir Singh and while the latter on fallen on the ground, gave kicks and fists blows to Randhir Singh and dragged him inside the house. This is also not in consonance with the medical evidence as only two contusions each on knee and ankle of right leg were noticed, which could be a result of fall, apart from the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. This is also not in consonance with the medical evidence as only two contusions each on knee and ankle of right leg were noticed, which could be a result of fall, apart from the fatal injury on the neck of the deceased. Even the alleged un-natural conduct of Har Gian and Banti Devi of their having thrown the lathis and caught hold of the deceased and dragged Randhir Singh in his house where Pirthi Singh gave an axe blow, also creates doubt about the participation of these two accused in the commission of offence. Had they shared common intention to commit the murder of Randhir Singh, they would not have thrown their lathis and behaved in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. One of the other circumstance which creates doubt about the participation of Har Gian and Banti in the murder of Randhir Singh is non-recovery of any lathi from them. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus cannot come in the way of this Court because it is settled that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. Thus, the involvement of Har Gian and Banti Devi, in the murder of Randhir Singh, is not free from doubts and they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 19. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held that it was appellant Pirthi Singh who had committed the murder of his own brother Randhir Singh while the case against other appellants namely Har Gian and Banti Devi is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. 19. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held that it was appellant Pirthi Singh who had committed the murder of his own brother Randhir Singh while the case against other appellants namely Har Gian and Banti Devi is not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Pirthi Singh under Section 302 IPC is maintained while the instant appeal to the extent of appellants Har Gian and Banti Devi is allowed, thereby acquitting them of the charges after extending benefit of doubt. 20. Appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. ---------0.J.S.K.0-----------