Judgment Paresh Upadhyay, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No: 27 of 2002, dated 19.7.2003, whereby, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge also found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)A and 27(2)of the Arms Act, however, no separate order of sentence is passed for the said offence, since for the offence of Section 302 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. It is against this judgment and order, the present appeal is preferred. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the father of the victim, Mahipalsinh Kiritsinh Jadeja, PW-1, gave a complaint to police on the night of 13/14 January, 2002 i.e. on 14.1.2002, at about 2.30 a.m., in the hospital, to the effect that, one Munnabhai came to his residence at about 11 p.m. on 13.1.2002 and informed that the son of the complainant is injured and he is taken to hospital. On this, the complainant rushed to hospital and found that his son was dead. His body was laying on a strature, having big wound around his neck, wherefrom substantial blood had come out and clothes of the victim were blood stained, the skin around the wound on neck, had black circle. The complainant further stated that some rickshaw driver had taken the victim to the hospital from near the nala, near the circuit house, where he was laying bleeding. The complainant thus gave the information that the victim is killed, by fire shot. The complainant did not name any person. Based on this, offence was registered by police against unknown person(s), under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25(1)A and 27(2) of the Arms Act. The complaint was investigated by police, the present appellant was arrested and after due procedure, charge sheet was filed in the competent Court and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, vide Ex.4, framed the charge against the appellant. 3. The complaint was investigated by police, the present appellant was arrested and after due procedure, charge sheet was filed in the competent Court and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, vide Ex.4, framed the charge against the appellant. 3. To prove the charge against the accused/ present appellant, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced 27 documentary evidences during the trial, the details of which are recorded in Para 4 of the judgement of learned Sessions Judge. After recording the evidence, learned Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, heard learned advocates for both the sides, and after evaluating the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused/ appellant herein, has committed the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and, Section 25(1) A and 27(2) of the Arms Act. Learned Sessions Judge accordingly recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, with fine, as aforesaid, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.V. Raju for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have gone through the evidence on record and the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. 5.1 The Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the sole eye-witness Nirav Bipinbhai Patel PW-3 Ex. 29, should not be believed at all. In his submission, for more than one reasons, the evidence of this witness is required to be discarded completely. He has submitted that the conduct of the said eye-witness is unnatural, coupled with the fact that there are contradictions in his deposition. Elaborating this point, Mr. Raju has submitted that the said eye-witness claimed that the victim was like his brother. On seeing the victim being injured critically, his natural conduct should have been that the victim is taken to hospital by him, which he has not done, instead he ran away. Further, while running away from the scene of offence towards his residence, on the way, there is police Head Quarter and also D.S.P. Bungalow, but he did not inform any police officer. Further, according to Mr. Raju, the conduct of the said eye-witness of going to his home and sleeping and informing the father of the victim next day about the incidence is suspicious and hard to believe. Further, according to Mr. Raju, the conduct of the said eye-witness of going to his home and sleeping and informing the father of the victim next day about the incidence is suspicious and hard to believe. According to him, evidence of this witness should not be taken as the base for conviction of the appellant. 5.2 The second contention on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the evidence regarding discovery of the weapon, alleged to have been used in the commission of offence should also be discarded completely. According to him, the weapon discovered does not connect the appellant with the actual commission of the offence. 5.3 According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, if these two evidences i.e. testimony of eye-witness and discovery of weapon, are discarded, there is no evidence against the accused/appellant based on which conviction could have been recorded. 5.4 Learned Counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that the brother of the victim namely, Siddhrajsinh was a police constable, that aspect may also be considered by the Court. 5.5 On the other hand, learned APP Shri Pandya has supported the judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Based on the evidence on record, he has contended that, there was sufficient, reliable evidence on record, before learned Sessions Judge to record conviction of the present appellant under Section 302 of IPC and also, under the Arms Act. 6. To deal with the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant, we deem it proper to first evaluate the evidence on record. Firstly, the eye witness, Nirav Bipinbhai Patel who is examined as PW-3 at Exh. 29. In his testimony, he has deposed that, a day before Uttarayan i.e. on 13.1.2002 at about 9.30 p.m., he and the victim had met at the society of Nirav. Thereafter, both had gone for a walk towards the Mahalaxmi Talkies and after having tea etc, they were sitting on ‘Nala’ near the Circuit House. After about 10-15 minutes, accused Narendrasinh Keshubha Zala and one Shailendra came there on motor-cycle from the direction of Court. Accused was driving the motor cycle and Shailendra was pillion rider. After coming there, accused abused the victim and asked when he will return his money. After about 10-15 minutes, accused Narendrasinh Keshubha Zala and one Shailendra came there on motor-cycle from the direction of Court. Accused was driving the motor cycle and Shailendra was pillion rider. After coming there, accused abused the victim and asked when he will return his money. On this, the victim stood up from the ‘Nala’ and at that time, accused pulled out country made pistol and pointed it on the neck of the victim and said that this will not take anytime to finish everything, and by saying so, he fired. The victim fell down and blood was coming out from around the neck of the victim. At that time, the accused and Shailendra fled with scooter towards Sardar society. Nirav tried to call the victim but the victim did not respond. Nirav got scared. He has further deposed that because he was scared, he ran towards Sardar society and on the way, he saw his uncle Harshad Velji Patel and his friend (i.e. Harshad’s friend) sitting on the otta of his shop. He narrated the incident to them. They told this witness that he is scared and he may go to home and sleep, and therefore he (Nirav) went home and slept. In the morning he learnt that the victim has died. Then he went to the home of the victim, where he narrated the incident to the mother and sister of the victim. Thereafter he went to the hospital and narrated the incident to the father of the victim. The father of the victim was at hospital at that time, since postmortem of the victim was being done. He also identified the accused in the Court. This witness is extensively cross examined by the defense. In the cross examination also, he stands by his say that he was present with the victim at the time of incident and also that he had seen the incident with his eyes. 7. Dr. Ravjibhai Dhanabhai Makwana PW-5, is examined at Ex. 31. He was on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital on 13.1.2002 night. He had examined the victim and he had done the postmortem of the victim next day. Pre postmortem case paper of the hospital Ex. 32 and postmortem report Ex. 36 are proved by the testimony of this witness. 31. He was on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital on 13.1.2002 night. He had examined the victim and he had done the postmortem of the victim next day. Pre postmortem case paper of the hospital Ex. 32 and postmortem report Ex. 36 are proved by the testimony of this witness. Sixty metal pellets were recovered from the muscular tissues of the neck of the body of the victim. On the medical case paper the following injuries were recorded: (1) CLW – Left eyebrow region. (2) Firearm wound-entry wound over right side of neck. X-rays Findings:— (1) Multiple radio- opaque pellets seem in the cervical region on left side. (2) Fracture of the body of the cervical third and fourth vertebrae. Postmortem report recorded following external and internal injuries. External Injuries: (1) CLW 2" x 1/8" muscle deep, over left eyebrow region of forehead, dry clotted blood presence in and around the wound. (2) A single, slightly irregular and oval shaped firearm entry wound, size of- 1.5" x 1/2" [on it’s longest and widest part] x Neck tissues and bone deep over right side of neck, 1" below the level of the upper border of the thyroid cartilage and 2" away from the vertical mid-line of the thyroid cartilage. Edges of the wound- were scorched and contused. The surroundings skin was simged and blackened. Multiple blood clots were present in and around the wound. A red swelling 2.5" x 2" size present over lateral aspect of left side of neck and back of neck region. 3" away – Posterior to lobule of left ear. On palpation of the swelling, multiple hard pellets like material felt, on lateral side of left side of Neck. On palpation on back of neck- fracture of cervical third and fourth vertebral found. (3) Two abrasions, size of 1" x 1.8", - 1/2" X 1/8" present over upper surface of left foot, on 3rd and 4th meta-tarsal bon region, dry coagulated blood present on the surface of each abrasion. Fracture of cervical third and fourth vertebrae found. Internal Injuries: Neck: On dissection of the Neck, below the external injury No. 2, of Col. No. 17:— (1) Subcutaneous tissues, the platysana and the muscles of the right side of neck, carotid sheath were greatly lacerated over an area of two inches round the wound of entrance. Fracture of cervical third and fourth vertebrae found. Internal Injuries: Neck: On dissection of the Neck, below the external injury No. 2, of Col. No. 17:— (1) Subcutaneous tissues, the platysana and the muscles of the right side of neck, carotid sheath were greatly lacerated over an area of two inches round the wound of entrance. (2) Below and Above the level of upper boarder of the thyroid cartilage, on right side of the neck, common carotid artery, internal jugular vein, external carotid artery and internal carotid artery, all were completely ruptured, the vagus nerve was torn. (3) Muscles of the left side of neck were lacerated by metal pellets. (4) Sixty metal pellets and three rubber buch were recovered from the muscular tissues of left side of neck. These sixty metal pellets and three rubber buch were collected and preserved in small glass jar to send to police. The cause of death, was recorded to be, Hemorrhagic shock, due to injury to large blood vessels of right side of neck by firearm. The weapon, (muddamal) was shown to the doctor and in his opinion, the injuries on the body of the victim were possible by the said weapon. In his opinion, the pellets recovered from the body of the victim could be fired from the said weapon. 8. Dr. Krushnaprasad M. Mehri (Scientific Officer) is examined as PW-10, at Exh. 42. By his deposition, FSL Report regarding weapon used in the commission of offence Exh. 43 is proved. The said report confirms that the pellets recovered from the body of the victim are fired from the weapon recovered in the investigation. 9. Manbha Bapasaheb Parmar, PSI was examined as PW-20, Exh. 63. In his deposition, he has deposed to the effect that the role of the accused was known through the statement of Nirav Patel. Further, he has confirmed the panchnama of clothes of the victim, blood sample, as well as pallets recovered from the body of the victim, 10. Anirudhsinh Jilubha, Police Inspector, Surendranagar, who had taken over the investigation from Manbha Bapasaheb Parmar, PW-20, was examined as PW-21, Exh. 64. In his deposition, he has supported the discovery weapon, vehicle/ motorcycle, clothes of the accused, as recorded in the respective panchnama. The notification of the District Magistrate regarding prohibition to hold weapon has also come on record through his deposition. 64. In his deposition, he has supported the discovery weapon, vehicle/ motorcycle, clothes of the accused, as recorded in the respective panchnama. The notification of the District Magistrate regarding prohibition to hold weapon has also come on record through his deposition. Since the accused was working as police constable, the prosecution sanction of the competent authority is placed on record through his testimony. He is the officer who had filed charge sheet against the accused. In cross examination also he has stood by the prosecution case. 11. One Kishansingh Arjunsinh Yadav is examined as PW-7, Exh. 38. He was working as Assistant Sub- Inspector at Adarniya out post, under Zinjuvada Police Station in Surendranagar District. The accused was serving as police constable at the said out post, with this witness. In his testimony he stated that from 12.1.2002, the accused was absent from his duty without any leave. On 14.1.2002, he was asked to talk on the Surendrangar Police Control, there from, he came to know that accused had killed the victim. He informed that the accused was absent from the duty. Reference made by learned Counsel for the appellant about the brother of the victim being police constable, would pale into insignificance in view of this fact. 12. The Serological Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. 22, confirms that blood group of the victim is B and the blood group on the cloths of the victim and the pellets sent for testing, is also B. 13. Now, we may examine, both the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. His first contention is regarding the evidence of the sole eye witness. As recorded above, in his submission, for more than one reasons, the evidence of this witness is required to be discarded completely. He has submitted that the conduct of the said eye-witness is unnatural. The second contention on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the evidence regarding discovery of the weapon, alleged to have been used in the commission of offence should also be discarded completely. According to him, the weapon discovered does not connect the appellant with the actual commission of the offence. In our view, none of these contentions can be accepted for the reasons stated herein after. According to him, the weapon discovered does not connect the appellant with the actual commission of the offence. In our view, none of these contentions can be accepted for the reasons stated herein after. Here, it is required to be noted that the said eye-witness does not have any animosity with the accused or his family. Further, in different situations, different persons may react differently. The cause of death of the victim is the injury caused by the fire shot given by the accused. The testimony of the eye-witness in this regard, is corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence. The weapon is discovered at the instance of the accused and it has also come in evidence that the injury leading to death could be caused by the weapon which is recovered and further, the pellets, in all, sixty in numbers, were recovered from the body of the victim, are such which could be fired from the weapon which is discovered by the prosecution at the instance of the accused. Thus, the deposition of PW-3, who is eye-witness gets corroboration from more than one evidence. 14. To support his contentions, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgments of the Honourable the Supreme Court in case of (i) Birappa and another vs. State Bank of Karnataka, (2010) 12 SCC 182 , (ii) Muluwa son of Binda and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCC 37 and (iii) Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra, 1969(2) SCC 872 . There cannot be any disagreement to the proposition of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India that the deposition of solitary eye-witness should be weighed very cautiously and the conviction should not rest on the testimony of witness which does not the inspire the confidence. Further, it is also true that the Section 27 of the Evidence Act contemplates that the fact discovered by the statement of accused to police officer should connect the said fact with the commission of offence. In the present case, we find that the evidence of eye-witness and use of the weapon discovered in commission of offence, get corroboration from independent medical and forensic evidence. In the present case, we find that the evidence of eye-witness and use of the weapon discovered in commission of offence, get corroboration from independent medical and forensic evidence. It is possible that in somebody’s opinion, the eye-witness should have responded to the fact situation in some different way, but it is settled position of law that in different situation different persons may react differently and this aspect itself would not render his testimony unbelievable, more particularly when it gets corroboration from other independent evidences. 15. At this juncture, following observations of the Honourable the Supreme Court of India, are required to be noted. Honourable the Supreme Court in case of Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 made following observations. “25. In Sunil Kumar vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367 = ( AIR 2004 SC 552 = 2003 AIR SCW 6026), this Court repelled a similar submission observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.” In the said judgement itself, it is also observed that : “18. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , this Court held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy. 19. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. …” Honourable the Supreme Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Narasimha Rao, AIR 2010 SC 3776 , while reversing the acquittal recorded by the High Court, made following observations. “ For the High Court therefore to hold PW1 was not an eye-witness is erroneous. We also see that eye-witness account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The Doctor, PW11 who conducted the post-mortem had found several cut injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. …” 7. To our mind, therefore, as the eye witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story, and the fact that the witness of the extra-judicial confession PW9 or the recovery of the weapon etc. did not support the prosecution, would not detract from their evidence.” 17. Keeping above principles in mind, we are unable to accept any of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. We hold that the evidence of the sole eye-witness PW- 3 is reliable and it would not be unsafe to base the conviction on his evidence, more particularly when it is corroborated by independent medical and forensic evidence. Keeping above principles in mind, we are unable to accept any of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant. We hold that the evidence of the sole eye-witness PW- 3 is reliable and it would not be unsafe to base the conviction on his evidence, more particularly when it is corroborated by independent medical and forensic evidence. Further, on the face of this direct evidence, as per settled position of law, as stated hereinabove, recovery/ discovery of weapon may pale into insignificance, however in the present case, we find reliable evidence to prove the discovery of weapon used for commission of offence, at the instance of the accused and the independent medical and forensic evidence also links it with the commission of offence. 18. In view of the aforesaid material evidence of eye-witness with the corroboration of discovery of weapon being incriminating material found at the instance of the accused with further corroboration of FSL report and evidence of scientific officer, we find that whether brother of the victim Siddhrajsinh was constable or not would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC to cause the death of victim by use of firearm on the vital part of the body of the deceased. Therefore, we do not find that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error in recording the conclusion to the effect that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant-accused. Accordingly, the conviction recorded and sentence imposed do not deserve to be interfered. 19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendrangar in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2002 dated 19th July, 2003, whereby, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default, simple imprisonment for one month, is confirmed. Conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)A and 27(2) of the Arms Act, is also confirmed. 20. Appeal is dismissed. P P P P P