JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 26.05.2001 passed by Sri Shyam Badan Singh. 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1996/11 of 1998 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing the appellant for any imprisonment, he released the appellant on executing P.R. bond of rupees two thousand to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 3. In brief, the prosecution case, is that PW 6. namely, Bhagya Narayan Mishra gave his Fardbeyan to S.I.. Parsauni Police Station on 12.07.1995 at about 11:45 p.m. in injured condition at Parsauni hospital to this effect that due to family dispute the appellant used to give threatening to assault him from before and on the same day at about 09:30 p.m., while he was returning to his home from Parsauni Chowk and reached near the door, of appellant, the appellant stopped him and gave one Jarsa blow which hit on his head as a result of which having sustained injury he fell down on the earth. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Ram Sundar Sah and Ram Ayodhya Mishra who came there and took him to Parsauni hospital. 4. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan. Parsauni P.S. Case No. 34 of 1995 under Section 307 and other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report was drawn up against the appellant. The matter was investigated and after completion of investigation. Charge -sheet was laid. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way. 5. The appellant was put on trial and accordingly he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which he denied end claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, seven witnesses and also got exhibited fardbeyan as Exhibit-l and injury report as Exhibit-2. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which he reiterated his innocence. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, seven witnesses and also got exhibited fardbeyan as Exhibit-l and injury report as Exhibit-2. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which he reiterated his innocence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant in support of his defence but from perusal of his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC as well as trends of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it appears that the defence of the appellant was total denial of the prosecution story and it is specific stand of the appellant that PW 6 sustained injury when he fell on the earth. 7. The learned trial Court having relied upon the dispositions of PW 1. PW 6 and PW 7 as well as injury report (Exhibit 2) convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that except PW 1, who happens to be full brother of PW 6, not a single independent witness came forward to support the prosecution case. It is further contended by him that PW 1 is also said to be chance witness and he stated that while he was going to Hanuman temple, he witnessed the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that PW 1 further stated that the alleged occurrence took place on Saturday whereas PW 6 stated that the alleged occurrence took place on Wednesday. He further submitted that there is not even whispering either in the fardbeyan or in the statement of PW 6 about the presence of prosecution witness No. 1 and, therefore, the presence of PW 1 on the place of occurrence becomes doubtful. He further submitted that no doubt. PW 6 supported the alleged occurrence but admittedly, there was previous dispute between PW 6 and the family of appellant and as a matter of fact PW I having got prepared forged injury report and having taken in his collusion to PW 7 lodged this false case. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that PW 1 and PW 6 have supported the prosecution case and furthermore, just after the alleged occurrence the fardbeyan of PW 6 was registered and PW 7 found injuries on the person of informant. 10. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that PW 1 and PW 6 have supported the prosecution case and furthermore, just after the alleged occurrence the fardbeyan of PW 6 was registered and PW 7 found injuries on the person of informant. 10. On perusal of lower Court's record; I find that PW 2. PW3. PW 4 and PW 5 have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case and furthermore, they denied to have made any statement before the police. 11. PW 1 supported the prosecution case but at para 3 of his cross-examination, he stated that at about 09:30 p.m., he was going to the house of one Bal Kishore Mishra to perform puja of Hanuman Jee. He further stated that puja of Hanuman Jee used to be performed on Saturday and furthermore, he stated that he could not say as to whether it was Wednesday on 12.07.1995 or not. Although, this witness has, nowhere, stated that the alleged occurrence took place on Saturday but even if the statement of this witness is• discarded, then also, there is PW 6, the informant, who supported the prosecution case and. Specifically, stated that appellant gave Jarsa blow to him. The PW 7 found injury on the person of PW 6 and it would appear from the deposition of PW 7 that PW 6 was examined by PW 7 on 12.07.1995 at 09:40 p.m. and. therefore, it is clear that just after the alleged occurrence the PW 6 was examined by the PW 7. 12. No doubt, except informant. P.W. 6, no person has come forward to support the prosecution case but it is settled principle of law that to prove a fact number of witness is not required and the Court can based conviction only on the solitary statement of a prosecution witness. Therefore, in my view, there is no ground on the basis of which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in impugned judgment could be disturbed. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this criminal appeal stands dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 26.05.2001 are, hereby, confirmed. Appeal dismissed.