Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1342 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh Rikhi Ram

2014-09-25

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No. 14-K/X/2005 titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of HP decided on 22.9.2008. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that deceased Phola Ram has two daughters namely Samrita Devi and Nisha Devi and one widow namely Smt Kablu Devi. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased Phola Ram had cordial relations with his wife and daughters during his life time and deceased Phola Ram did not execute any registered Will on dated 3.8.1984. It is further alleged by prosecution that a fictitious Will dated 3.8.1984 was executed by accused Krishan Kumar in order to grab whole property of deceased Phola Ram. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused Krishan Kumar in connivance with Raghu Nath and Harnam Singh fabricated a forged Will. It is further alleged by prosecution that both Raghu Nath and Harnam Singh died. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused signed the Will as an attesting witness and deceased Raghu Nath also signed Will as an attesting witness. It is further alleged by prosecution that a forged Will was executed in order to grab the property of deceased Phola Ram. It is further alleged by prosecution that deceased Phola Ram had also executed a sale deed of his land on dated 8.2.1995 in favour of Nathu Ram. It is further alleged by prosecution that original sale deed was took into possession vide memo Ext PW14/B. It is further alleged by prosecution that thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram affixed on memo Ext PW16/A were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory HP Shimla for comparison the thumb impression in sale deed dated 8.2.1995. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per opinion of the expert thumb impressions upon the Will and thumb impressions in the sale deed were of different person and were not of deceased Phola Ram. Charge was framed against accused krishan Kumar and co-accused Harnam Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused person did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Accused Harnam Singh died during the pendency of the trial. 3. Charge was framed against accused krishan Kumar and co-accused Harnam Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused person did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Accused Harnam Singh died during the pendency of the trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses in support of its case : Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Sh Bidhi Singh PW2 Sh Raj Kumar PW3 Sh Nathu Ram PW4 Sh Kartar Chand PW5 Sh Karam Singh PW6 Sh Kehar Singh PW7 Sh Pawan Kumar PW8 Sh Pritam Singh PW9 Sh Balbir Singh PW10 Sh Des Raj PW11 Sh Man Chand PW12 Smt Simrita Devi PW13 Sh Sahib Singh PW14 Sh Nathu Ram PW15 Sh Krishan Lal PW16 Sh Mohinder Singh PW17 Sh Kailash Chand PW18 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ext PW16/A Will dated 3.8.1984 Ext PW18/1 Signature of Raghu Nath Ext PW18/2 Thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram Ext PW18/2 to PW18/17 Specimen signature of Krishan Kumar Ext PW18/18 Report of Asstt. Documents Examiner Shimla. Ext PW10/A Copy of complaint Ext PW1/A Seizure memo of Will Ext PW11/A Seizure memo of register Ext PW14/B Recovery memo of sale deed Ext PW3/A Sale Deed Ext PW5/A Signature of Karam Singh Ext PW14/A Signature of Nathu Ram Ext PW9/A Report of Director Finger Print Bureau Phillour Ext PW7/A Copy of sale deed Ext PW9/B Photographs of thumb impression of Raj Kumar Ext PW9/CD Photo copy of thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram Ext PW8/A Copy of FIR No.107/2001 Ext PW6/A Register of deed writer Ext DX Copy of judgment dated 3.2.2003 5. The statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr PC. Accused did not examine any defence witness. Learned trial Court Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala HP convicted Krishan Kumar for offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thereafter accused Krishan Kumar filed Criminal Appeal No. 14-K/X/2005 titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of HP before learned Addl. Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala which was decided on 22.9.2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. II Kangra at Dharamshala allowed the appeal filed by Krishan Kumar and set aside the judgment of learned trial Court and acquitted him from all criminal charges. 6. State of HP before learned Addl. Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala which was decided on 22.9.2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. II Kangra at Dharamshala allowed the appeal filed by Krishan Kumar and set aside the judgment of learned trial Court and acquitted him from all criminal charges. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. II Kangra at Dharamshala State of HP filed present appeal. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent and also gone through the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises for determination before us is whether judgment of learned trial Court should be affirmed or judgment of learned first appellate Court should be affirmed keeping in view the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Bidhi Singh has stated that he has joined investigation of the present case. He has stated that on dated 6.2.2002 he visited at Police Station Shahpur. He has stated that co-accused deceased Harnam Singh had produced Will and the same was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that Will was not written by him. He has stated that he is not the marginal witness of the Will. 9.1 PW2 Raj Kumar has stated that he is document writer at Kangra. He has stated that in the year 1984 he has written Will Ext PW2/A. He has stated that testator was not known to him personally. He has stated that he has written the Will as per identification of testator by marginal witness. He has stated that he also recorded entry in the document register. He has admitted that testator was also appeared before the Sub Registrar. He has stated that lamberdar was personally known to him. He has stated that lamberdar has identified the testator. He has stated that he also recorded the entries of Will in the document register. 9.2 PW3 Nathu Ram has stated that he is working as Deed Writer. He has stated that he has executed the sale deed Ext.PW3/A at the instance of testator Phola Ram. He has stated that testator had marked his thumb impressions upon sale deed. He has stated that he is working as a document writer since 1983. 9.2 PW3 Nathu Ram has stated that he is working as Deed Writer. He has stated that he has executed the sale deed Ext.PW3/A at the instance of testator Phola Ram. He has stated that testator had marked his thumb impressions upon sale deed. He has stated that he is working as a document writer since 1983. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram was not personally known to him. 9.3 PW4 Kartar Chand has stated that he was posted as Registration Clerk since May 2002 in the office of Sub Registrar Kangra and he also brought the summoned record. He has stated that as per record deceased Phola Ram had executed a Will on dated 3.8.1984. He has stated that Will was also registered before Sub Registrar. He has stated that Photostat copy of Will mark A is correct as per original Will. He has stated that Will was entered in the record of Sub Registrar. In cross-examination he has stated that on dated 3.8.1984 he was not posted as registration clerk. 9.4 PW5 Karam Singh has stated that deceased Phola Ram was personally known to him. He has stated that on dated 8.2.1995 deceased Phola Ram had alienated the land in favour of Nathu Ram measuring 16 bighas 7 biswas. He has stated that sale deed was executed in his presence. He has stated that Nathu Ram executed the sale deed. He has stated that sale deed is Ext PW3/A which bears his signatures Ext PW5/A as marginal witness. He has stated that another marginal witness was ex-pradhan. He has stated that he is lamberdar of village since 30 to 35 years. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram was not resident of his village. He has denied suggestion that deceased Phola Ram did not execute any sale deed in his presence. 9.5 PW6 Kehar Singh has stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Shahpur since 2002 and he joined investigation of the case. He has stated that Raj Kumar document writer has produced register Ext.PW6/A which was took into possession. 9.6 PW7 Pawan Kumar has stated that he was posted as registration Clerk in sub Tehsil Siunti District Chamba since 1986 and brought the summoned record. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram on dated 8.2.1995 had executed a sale deed Ext PW3/A which is correct as per original record. 9.6 PW7 Pawan Kumar has stated that he was posted as registration Clerk in sub Tehsil Siunti District Chamba since 1986 and brought the summoned record. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram on dated 8.2.1995 had executed a sale deed Ext PW3/A which is correct as per original record. He has stated that document was written by Nathu Ram. He has stated that sale deed was written by Nath Ram. He has stated that the same has been recorded in the record of Sub Registrar. In cross examination he has stated that in the year 1995 he was not the registration clerk. 9.7 PW8 Pritam Singh has stated that he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Shahpur. He has stated that on dated 4.8.2007 an application was received on the basis of which FIR Ext PW8/A was recorded by him. He has stated that after registration of FIR the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer. 9.8 PW9 Balbir Singh has stated that he was posted as finger print expert in the office of Finger Print Bureau Phillaur. He has stated that he has joined the office of Finger Print Bureau Phillaur in the year 1994. He has stated that he New Delhi in the year 1994. He has stated that during the eight years of his service he has compared many cases and had given opinion in civil and criminal cases. He has stated that two documents i.e. sale deed and Will were sent for opinion whether thumb impressions in sale deed dated 8.2.1995 and thumb impressions in Will dated 3.8.1984 belongs to same person or not. He has stated that he had given his opinion Ext PW9/A. He has stated that he took photographs Ext PW9/B, Ext PW9/C and Ext PW9/D. As per opinion Ext PW9/A placed on record admitted A1 thumb impression and disputed thumb impression question 2 and question 4 are not of same person. 9.9 PW10 Des Raj has stated that he was posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station Shahpur. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2003 he recorded the statement of document writer namely Raj Kumar. He has stated that he thereafter handed over case file to Station House Officer. He denied suggestion that he has recorded the statement of the witness according to his own version. He has stated that on dated 17.4.2003 he recorded the statement of document writer namely Raj Kumar. He has stated that he thereafter handed over case file to Station House Officer. He denied suggestion that he has recorded the statement of the witness according to his own version. 9.10 PW11 Man Chand has stated that he was posted as Investigating Officer in police station Shahpur. He has stated that he took register into possession from document writer. 9.11 PW12 Samrita Devi has stated that deceased Phola Ram was her father. She has stated that her father was owner of immovable property situated at District Chamba HP. She has stated that immovable property situated at Chamba District was alienated by her father during his life time. She has stated that her deceased father Phola Ram has two daughters and one widow who had died. She has stated that Hernam Singh was not related to deceased Phola Ram. She has stated that her deceased father did not execute any Will qua his property. She has stated that Krishan Kumar is the brother in law of Harnam Singh. She has stated that her father did not disclose about the execution of any Will. She has stated that Raghu Nath is also relative of Harnam Singh. She has stated that her father died in the year 1995. She has stated that her father did not execute any Will during his life time. She has stated that when accused Krishan Kumar threatened her mother then she came to know about execution of forged Will. She has denied suggestion that three suits were filed qua the Will. She has denied suggestion that two suits have been dismissed and one suit is pending. She has stated that mutation has been sanctioned in favour of Hernam Singh. She has denied suggestion that death ceremony of her father was performed by Harnam Singh. She has denied suggestion that her father executed a Will in favour of Harnam Singh. 9.12 PW13 Sahib Singh has stated that he remained pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram was known to him. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram has two daughters. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram had executed a sale deed qua immovable property situated in District Chamba. He has stated that he has also signed in the sale deed Ext.PW3/A as marginal witness. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram was known to him. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram has two daughters. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram had executed a sale deed qua immovable property situated in District Chamba. He has stated that he has also signed in the sale deed Ext.PW3/A as marginal witness. He has stated that he does not know that Harnam Singh used to serve deceased Phola Ram during his life time. 9.13 PW14 Nathu Ram has stated that deceased Phola Ram was known to him. He has stated that deceased Phola Ram had executed a sale deed Ext PW3/A in his favour measuring 16 bighas 7 biswas. He has stated that sale deed was executed before the marginal witness. He denied suggestion that deceased Phola Ram was not in a position to move in the year 1994-95. He denied suggestion that thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram were not obtained on sale deed Ext PW3/A. 9.14 PW15 SI Krishan Lal has stated that file was handed over to him for investigation. He has stated that Will and sale deed were took into possession. He has stated that thereafter file was handed over to ASI Kailash for further investigation. He denied suggestion that he did not record the statements of the witnesses as per their version. 9.15 PW16 Mohinder Singh has stated that he was posted as SHO in Police Station Shahpur. He has stated that he obtained copy of sale deed Ext PW7/A from the office of Sub Registrar. He has stated that he took into possession register from document writer Ext PW6/A. He has stated that he also obtained hand writing specimen of accused Krishan Kumar from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Dharamshala and thereafter the same was sent for chemical examination at FSL Shimla. He has stated that after completion of investigation the challan was filed. He has denied suggestion that he did not obtain any document. 9.16 PW17 Kailash has stated that Will Ext.PW6/A and sale deed Ext PW3/A were sent for opinion in the office of Finger Print Bureau Phillaur. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the file to ASI Des Raj. 9.17 PW18 Dr. 9.16 PW17 Kailash has stated that Will Ext.PW6/A and sale deed Ext PW3/A were sent for opinion in the office of Finger Print Bureau Phillaur. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He has stated that thereafter he handed over the file to ASI Des Raj. 9.17 PW18 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan Assistant Director Documentary & Photography State Forensic Science Laboratory Shimla HP has stated that she has qualified M.Sc, M.Phil and P.Hd in Chemistry. She has stated that she has examined more than 200 cases and had given opinion in civil and criminal cases. She has stated that investigating agency sent the document i.e. Will for the comparison of signatures of accused Krishan Kumar only. (A) Report of Director Finger Print Bureau Phillaur is fatal to the innocence of accused. 10. We have carefully perused the report of Director Finger Print Phillaur Ext PW9/A placed on record. Report of Director Finger Print Phillaur Ext PW9/A remains un-rebutted on record. Accused did not prove any counter finger print report. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that admitted thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram is marked as A1 upon the sale deed executed by deceased Phola Ram in favour of Nathu Ram in consideration amount of Rs.52,000/- (Fifty two thousand) qua land 16 Bighas 7 biswas on dated 8.2.1995. In the present case admitted thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram were sent for comparison with disputed Will. It is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram were obtained upon disputed Will at three places. Thumb impression of deceased Pholo Ram was obtained in the front page of disputed Will by document writer. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that even Sub Registrar obtained thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram when the Will was presented before Sub Registrar for registration at two places in the reverse page of the Will where endorsement certificate was given by Sub Registrar. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram were also obtained upon register of document writer when entry of disputed Will was recorded in the register of document writer. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that thumb impressions of deceased Phola Ram were also obtained upon register of document writer when entry of disputed Will was recorded in the register of document writer. It is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that admitted signatures mentioned in sale deed as A1 were sent for Finger Print Bureau opinion with thumb impressions Q1, Q2 and Q3 upon the Will and Q4 upon document register. As per opinion of hand writing expert the thumb impression of testator mentioned in sale deed A1 did not tally with thumb impressions i.e. Q2 and Q4 mentioned in the disputed Will and in the register of document writer. Finger Print Bureau has specifically reported in positive manner that Q2 and Q4 thumb impressions and A1 thumb impression are not of same person but are of different person and qua other questions Finger Print Bureau has specifically mentioned in the report that same were not comparable. In view of positive report given by Finger Print Bureau that admitted thumb impression A1 did not tally with thumb impression Q2 mentioned in the Will presented before Sub Registrar and in view of the positive report of Finger Print Bureau that admitted thumb impression A1 did not tally with the register of document writer who had written the disputed Will. It is held that report of Finger Print Bureau is fatal to innocence of the accused in the present case. (B) Testimony of PW5 Karam Singh is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 11. PW5 Karam Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that on dated 8.2.1995 deceased Phola Ram had executed a sale deed in favour of Nathu Ram qua 16 bighas 7 biswas of land. He has specifically stated that deceased Phola Ram had marked his thumb impression in his presence before document writer and before Sub Registrar. Testimony of PW5 Karam Singh that deceased Phola Ram had marked his thumb impression in sale deed on dated 8.2.1995 placed on record in his presence is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court qua factum of admitted thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram. Testimony of PW5 is fatal to the innocence of accused. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW5 was any hostile animus against the accused at any point of time. Testimony of PW5 is fatal to the innocence of accused. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW5 was any hostile animus against the accused at any point of time. (C) Testimony of PW7 Pawan Kumar registration clerk is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 12. PW7 Pawan Kumar registration clerk has specifically stated in positive manner that as per record of Sub Registrar on dated 8.2.1995 deceased Phola Ram had executed sale deed in favour of Nathu Ram and same has been entered in the official register of Sub Registrar. Sub Registrar had obtained thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram at the time of execution of sale deed in discharge of his official duty. Hence the admitted thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW7 registration Clerk. Testimony of PW7 is fatal to the innocence of accused. Testimony of PW7 is also trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW7 has hostile animus against accused at any point of time. (D) Even testimony of PW9 Balbir Singh is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 13. PW9 Balbir Singh has stated that he has passed finger print expert examination from CFPF/NCRB New Delhi and during eight years of his service he has compared many cases. PW9 has also stated in positive manner that admitted thumb impression of testator deceased Phola Ram A1 did not tally with Q2 obtained by Sub Registrar upon the back portion of the registered Will and also did not tally with Q4 thumb impression obtained by deed writer upon his deed register. Testimony of PW9 Balbir Singh is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW9. Testimony of PW9 is fatal to the innocence of accused. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW9 has hostile animus against accused at any point of time. (E) Testimony of PW2 Raj Kumar is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 14. PW2 Raj Kumar document writer has specifically stated that he has written the disputed Will on dated 3.8.1984. He has stated in positive manner that testator was not personally known to him. (E) Testimony of PW2 Raj Kumar is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 14. PW2 Raj Kumar document writer has specifically stated that he has written the disputed Will on dated 3.8.1984. He has stated in positive manner that testator was not personally known to him. He has stated that testator was identified by accused Krishan Kumar and lamberdar Raghu Nath Singh. PW2 has stated in positive manner that accused Krishan Kumar had identified deceased Phola Ram in his presence when he had written disputed Will dated 3.8.1984. Testimony of PW2 is fatal to the innocence of accused. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW2 has hostile animus against the accused at any point of time. Testimony of PW2 is also trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. (F) Testimony of PW3 Nathu Ram is also fatal to the innocence of accused. 15. Even PW3 Nathu Ram document writer has stated in positive manner that he has executed the sale deed Ext PW3/A as per testator. He has stated that testator had marked his thumb impression in his presence. PW3 has admitted that deceased Phola Ram had marked his thumb impression in his presence during his life time when he executed sale deed dated 8.2.1995 in favour of Nathu Ram. PW3 Nathu Ram has also proved the factum of admitted thumb impression of testator deceased Phola Ram. Testimony of PW3 is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 Nathu Ram. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW3 Nathu Ram has hostile animus against accused at any point of time. Testimony of PW3 is hostile to the innocence of accused. (G) Recovery of sale deed, recovery of disputed Will and recovery of register of document writer proved beyond reasonable doubt. 16. In the present case recovery of sale deed, recovery of disputed Will and recovery of register of document writer proved on record beyond reasonable doubt as per testimony of PW1 Bidhi Singh. Recovery of disputed Will is proved as per testimony of PW1 Bidhi Singh. Recovery of register of document writer is proved by way of testimony of PW6 Kehar Singh and recovery of sale deed is proved as per testimony of PW13 Sahib Singh. Recovery of disputed Will is proved as per testimony of PW1 Bidhi Singh. Recovery of register of document writer is proved by way of testimony of PW6 Kehar Singh and recovery of sale deed is proved as per testimony of PW13 Sahib Singh. Testimony of recovery witnesses are also trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of recovery witness. Accused did not adduce any defence witness in order to prove that recovery witnesses have hostile animus against accused person at any point of time. Testimonies of recovery witnesses are also fatal to the innocence of accused. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused person that civil litigation is pending inter se the parties and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that civil proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent proceedings. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused did not place on record any judgment and decree of the civil Court. It is well settled law that sub-judice of civil proceedings are not sufficient to drop criminal proceedings unless final adjudication is given by civil Court qua the genuineness of the Will in dispute. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that report of Finger Print Bureau is not sufficient to convict the accused in the present case is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Director Finger Print Bureau has specifically stated in positive manner that admitted thumb impressions of testator deceased Phola Ram in sale deed dated 8.2.1995 did not tally with the thumb impression of testator mentioned in Q2 and Q4 in the disputed Will. Director Finger Print Bureau has further specifically stated that thumb impression mentioned at A1 and thumb impressions mentioned at Q2 and Q4 are of different person and are not of same person. It is well settled law that ridge characteristic of human being did not tally with each other. It is well settled law that finger print science is a perfect science. It is well settled law that ridge characteristic of human being did not tally with each other. It is well settled law that finger print science is a perfect science. Thumb impression of deceased Phola Ram mentioned at Q2 was obtained by Sub Registrar when disputed Will was presented before Sub Registrar for registration and Sub Registrar has given certificate to this effect in discharge of his official duty and the same is relevant fact under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Disputed thumb impressions of testator were also obtained by document writer when he had entered the disputed will in his document register i.e.Q4. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that the testimony of prosecution witness is not sufficient to convict accused Krishan Kumar is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that facts can be proved by way of testimony of a single witness. It is also well settled law that conviction can be sustained on the solitary evidence of the witnesses in a criminal case if testimony of witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. (See 1973 SC 944 titled Jose Vs. State of Kerala. Also See AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. And also see AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras). Even as per Indian Evidence Act 1872 facts can be proved by way of oral evidence or by way of documentary evidence. Even as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act no particular numbers of witnesses shall be required for the proof of any fact. It was held in case reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 titled Lalu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories (1) Wholly reliable (2) Wholly un-reliable (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the testimony of witness is wholly reliable then conviction could be sustained on the testimony of single witness if testimony of single witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. When the testimony of witness is wholly reliable then conviction could be sustained on the testimony of single witness if testimony of single witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court. It was held in case reported in 1997 (2) Crime 175 titled Raja Vs. State that reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of a witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is true and is correct version of the case of the prosecution. It was held that Courts are concerned with the merit of the statement of a particular witness and Courts are not concerned with the number of witness examined by the prosecution. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution case and on this ground appeal filed by the State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused did not point out any material contradiction which goes to the root of the case. It is proved on record that complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala and thereafter FIR No. 107/2001 was registered on dated 4.8.2001 and the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in Court on dated 12.9.2003, 15.9.2003, 16.9.2003, 17.9.2003, 14.10.2003, 15.10.2003, 13.11.2003 and 5.8.2004 after a sufficient gap of time. It is well settled law that if testimony of the prosecution witness is recorded after a gap of sufficient time then minor contradictions are bound to come in a criminal case. It is well settled law principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trials. (See AIR 1980 SC 957 titled Bhe Ram Vs State of Haryana. Also See AIR 1971 SC 2505 titled Rai Singh Vs. State of Haryana). It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it was held that each case should be decided as per proved facts. State of Haryana). It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1328 titled Dalbir Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it was held that each case should be decided as per proved facts. In the present case it is proved on record that beneficiary of the alleged Will is Harnam Singh and it is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Krishan Kumar is real brother in law of Harnam Singh who is beneficiary of disputed Will dated 3.8.1984. 21. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that specimen signatures of accused Krishan Kumar were obtained by learned trial Court and thereafter specimen signatures of accused Krishan Kumar and disputed will were sent for the opinion of hand writing expert and hand writing expert did not express any definite opinion and in view of the testimony of PW18 Dr Meenakshi Mahajan Assistant Director Documentary & Photography State Forensic Science Laboratory Shimla HP appeal filed by the State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the report submitted by PW18 Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan. The report submitted by Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan and the testimony of PW18 are not helpful to accused Krishan Kumar because accused Krishan Kumar has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr PC in question No.3 that he has signed the disputed Will as a marginal witness. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. 22. In view of the above stated facts we accept the appeal filed by State of HP and we affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court in criminal Case No.2- II/04/03 dated 7.11.2005 & 10.11.2005 and we set aside the judgment passed by learned first appellate Court dated 22.9.2008 announced in criminal appeal No.14-K/X/2005. The judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court be executed forthwith in accordance with law. Records of the Courts below be sent back forthwith. Pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.