JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31-12-2001 passed by Special Judge [under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"), Sehore, in Special Case No. 302/2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine stipulation and RI for six months with fine stipulation respectively. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 2-9-1999 at about 10 a.m., complainant-Samandar Singh and his father Munshilal were cutting grass in their field. Thereafter, as they proceeded for their home, Ramesh, Suresh and Brindavan armed with farsas and Dharma Singh armed with sarfa (ballam), came there and started assaulting Munshilal due to which he fell on the spot. As Samandar Singh tried to escape the appellants assaulted him as well, while abusing and exhorting to kill him. Upon the shouts of Samandar Singh, his grand mother and Nathuram came on the spot, while the appellants fled. In the said incident, Samandar Singh received injuries on his hands and legs, while Munshilal sustained injuries on his head, chest and both the hands and legs. Nathuram informed about the incident to Mishrilal, Munshilal S/o. Sevaram, Ram Singh and his mother Ram Kumar Bai, who also reached the spot. Samandar Singh and Munshilal were taken by Nathuram in a bullock cart to Police Station, Bilkis, where at about 4 p.m., First Information Report [for short "FIR" (Exh. P-1)] was lodged. Munshilal and Samandar Singh were taken to Primary Health Centre, Bilkisganj from where, they were referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, but near Ratibad Village, Munshilal succumbed to the injuries thus caused. Accordingly, merge intimation was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was based upon mis-appreciation of evidence on record. According to him, existence of previous enmity with regard to boundary dispute of agricultural lands, is established from the evidence on record and there are material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence and, therefore, eye-witness account is not reliable. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was based upon mis-appreciation of evidence on record. According to him, existence of previous enmity with regard to boundary dispute of agricultural lands, is established from the evidence on record and there are material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence and, therefore, eye-witness account is not reliable. To buttress the contention, reliance was placed on the following precedents:-- (i) Budhwa v. State of M.P., AIR 1991 SC 4 . (ii) Hallu v. State of M.P., AIR 1974 SC 1936 . (iii) Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 . (iv) Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 979 . (v) Vithal Pundalik Zendge v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1110 . (vi) State of Gujarat v. Patel Mohan Mulji, AIR 1994 SC 250 . (vii) Kathi Odhabai Bhimabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1993 SC 1193 . (viii) Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2552 . 5. In response, learned Government Advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well-merited and the impugned judgment does not warrant interference. He contended that if testimony of eye-witness is undoubtedly trustworthy then minor consistencies between ocular and medical evidence should be ignored in the interests of justice. For this, reliance was placed on D. Sailu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 505 . 6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the Trial Court was perused. 7. To bring home the charges prosecution examined, as many as 24 witnesses, including Dr. D.S. Badkur (P.W. 16), who conducted the post-mortem. As per autopsy report (Exh. P-30), cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of craniocerebral and leg injuries. Undisputedly, nature of death was homicidal, and therefore, there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence on that point. 8. The only eye-witness to the incident is injured Samandar Singh (P.W. 1), son of deceased. As per autopsy report (Exh. P-30), cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of craniocerebral and leg injuries. Undisputedly, nature of death was homicidal, and therefore, there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence on that point. 8. The only eye-witness to the incident is injured Samandar Singh (P.W. 1), son of deceased. Ram Singh (P.W. 2), Mankunwar (P.W. 3), Mishrilal Chowkidar (P.W. 6), Rambabu (P.W. 10), Ramkun war (P.W. 12), widow of the deceased, Smt. Geetabai (P.W. 17) and Nathuram (P.W. 21) were the witnesses who had reached on the spot after receiving information about the incident and had seen deceased and complainant-Samandar Singh on the spot and were apprised by Samandar that they had been assaulted by the appellants. 9. Dr. (Smt.) Archana (P.W. 20) had examined the injuries of Munshilal and Samandar Singh and prepared respective MLC reports. 10. Samandar Singh (P.W. 1) categorically stated that on the date of incident in the morning at 10 a.m., he and his father Munshilal after cutting grass, were returning to their home. At that time, appellants, Ramesh, Suresh and Brindavan, armed with farsas, while Dharma armed with kharpa (ballam), came there and assaulted his father, who fell on the spot. As he went to intervene, he was also assaulted. Upon is shouts, the witnesses arrived and were apprised by him of the incident. His father received injuries on both his hands and legs, chest and head. He also received injuries on both his legs and hands. He lodged FIR (Exh. P-1). Thereafter, they were sent to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where the doctor declared him dead. His evidence is fully corroborated by that of above named witnesses. 11. FIR (Exh. P-1) was promptly lodged wherein all the facts were also mentioned. The corresponding injuries were also proved by Dr. (Smt.) Archana (P.W. 20). She categorically deposed that she had examined Munshilal and prepared MLC report (Exh. P-32). She had noted lacerated and incised wounds on both his legs, head and chest. She had also examined Samandar Singh and prepared MLC report (Exh. P-34) on whose legs, as well, she had found incised and lacerated wounds Though Dr. D.S. Badkur (P.W. 16) had found three ante-mortem lacerated wounds on forehead and legs of the deceased. In Para 12 he deposed that neither there was any incised wound nor stab wound. She had also examined Samandar Singh and prepared MLC report (Exh. P-34) on whose legs, as well, she had found incised and lacerated wounds Though Dr. D.S. Badkur (P.W. 16) had found three ante-mortem lacerated wounds on forehead and legs of the deceased. In Para 12 he deposed that neither there was any incised wound nor stab wound. On this aspect, it was argued by learned Counsel that there was inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence of Samandar Singh (P.W. 1) who had stated that injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon, viz., farsa and kharpa. 12. It is well-settled that ocular testimony has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence. However, ocular evidence may be disbelieved when medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of ocular evidence being true. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in-guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailment in order to falsely implicate someone. As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. Unless corroborated is insisted upon by statutes, Court should not insist on corroboration except in cases, where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence that corroboration should be insisted upon. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down. 13. In the case in hand, there is no ground to discard the testimony of injured eye-witness Samandar, which is well-corroborated by other witnesses of res gestae evidence, as well as, recitals of a promptly lodged FIR. Moreover, it is apparent that deceased and Samandar Singh had received injuries in the incident. Needless to say that doctors had not witnessed the incident. It is trite that where the eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Moreover, it is apparent that deceased and Samandar Singh had received injuries in the incident. Needless to say that doctors had not witnessed the incident. It is trite that where the eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses' account, which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". 14. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or perversity in convicting and sentencing the appellants and further that in the backdrop of the well-settled position of law as discussed above, precedents cited by the learned Counsel, are of no avail/oil to him, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 15. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Impugned conviction and sentences are hereby affirmed. 16. Copy of this judgment along with record of the Trial Court be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.