JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Cr. A. Nos. 598/2009 & 599/2009 filed against judgment dated 10-6-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No. 162/2008 are being disposed of by the common judgment. Appellant No. 1 in Cr. A. No. 598/2009 namely Phodol @ Duryodhan and appellant No. 2 in Cr. A. No. 599/2009 namely Mohan Lal died and the appeals so far as they relate to them, abate. 2. By filing two criminal appeals, 8 convicted appellants have challenged legality & propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 10-6-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No. 162/2008, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons having its common object to commit murder of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and attempt to commit murder of Birichram in furtherance of common object of the assembly and for committing murder of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and causing fatal injuries to Birichram, convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for two years & pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default additional RI for two months; RI for three years & pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default additional RI for two months; imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months; imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months; imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months; and RI for seven years & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months, respectively. 3. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants and thereby committed an illegality. 4. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months; and RI for seven years & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default additional RI for three months, respectively. 3. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants and thereby committed an illegality. 4. As per case of the prosecution, on 3-8-2008 at about 1.30 p.m. Injured Birichram (PW-19) went to the house of Bhojram for inviting him for sixth day birth of child (chhati), the appellants who are neighbours of Bhojram were present in front of their house, they challenged Birichram (PW-19) that they will kill him, Birichram requested the appellants not to abuse and assault, then deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan who was holding battleaxe, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo who was also holding battleaxe, deceased appellant Jagru who was holding kudari and remaining who were holding stick assaulted him. Chumbai (PW-14) was coming towards the spot along with Gayatri Bai (PW-17). They tried to intervene in the incident. At the same time, unfortunate deceased Chhedilal was coming towards his field, he also requested the appellants then the appellants after leaving Birichram (PW-19), assaulted Chhedilal. Deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan crushed the head of Chhedilal by blunt part of battleaxe. Unfortunate deceased Bhuru @ Parmanand also came to the spot, the appellants also assaulted him and also crushed his head. Another unfortunate deceased Bablu also came to the spot to intervene and they also assaulted Bablu. Phodol crushed his head. Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) & Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) came to the spot. The appellants' also assaulted them. They badly injured Dilip Kumar Yadav who went to the house. They killed Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand on the spot. 5. Chumbai (PW-14) went to the village and told the incident to Bedram Yadav (PW-15) who telephoned to Police Outpost: Naila. Police reached to the spot whom Chumbai (PW-14) lodged dehati nalishi vide Ex. P-57A. Finally, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-58. She also lodged dehati morgue vide Exs. P-59, P-61 & P-63. Finally, morgue was also recorded vide Exs. P-60, P-62 & P-64. After summoning the witnesses vide Exs. P-65, P-67, P-2, P-3 & P-4, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest over the dead bodies of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand vide Exs. P-5, P-6 & P-7, respectively. P-58. She also lodged dehati morgue vide Exs. P-59, P-61 & P-63. Finally, morgue was also recorded vide Exs. P-60, P-62 & P-64. After summoning the witnesses vide Exs. P-65, P-67, P-2, P-3 & P-4, the Investigating Officer prepared inquest over the dead bodies of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand vide Exs. P-5, P-6 & P-7, respectively. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Exs. P-8, P-9, P-10 & P-11. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-12. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex. P-30. 6. Dead body of Chhedilal was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Akaltara. Dr. M.P. Dahariya (PW-5) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-47 and found following injuries:-- ? Lacerated wounds over head, 6 x 1 cm., 8 x 1 cm. and 7 x 1 cm. each. ? Cut injury over left wrist 4 x 1 x 1 cm., lower end of radius cut off. ? Huge amount of blood present over frontal, temporal and occipital regions. Fracture of right frontal, temporal and occipital regions. Bone is in 3-4 pieces and depressed fracture present. ? Brain matter congested and skull is full of blood. Cause of death was haemotoma and shock. Death was homicidal in nature. 7. Dead body of Pradeep Yadav @ Bablu was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Akaltara. Dr. M.P. Dahariya (PW-5) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-48 and found following injuries:-- ? Left thumb bearing cut at front base of meta carpal bone, only skin attached. ? Right frontal, parietal, occipital and temporal bones are fractured. ? Lacerated wound over head in 3 places, 6 x 1 cm., 7 x 1 cm. and 9 x 1 cm. ? Brain matter congested. Skull with full of blood. Cause of death was haemotoma and shock. Death was homicidal in nature. 8. Dead body of Parmanand Yadav @ Bhuru was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Akaltara. Dr. M.P. Dahariya (PW-5) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-49 and found following injuries:-- ? Lacerated wound over head, 6 x 1 cm., 5 x 1 cm. and 8 x 1 cm. ? Fracture of right frontal, temporal, parietal with both occipital bones. All bones are fractured completely in 2-3 pieces. ? Brain matter coming out from fronto occipital region. ? Brain matter is congested and brain is full of blood. ? Lacerated wound over head, 6 x 1 cm., 5 x 1 cm. and 8 x 1 cm. ? Fracture of right frontal, temporal, parietal with both occipital bones. All bones are fractured completely in 2-3 pieces. ? Brain matter coming out from fronto occipital region. ? Brain matter is congested and brain is full of blood. ? Cut injury over right head 4" below elbow joint interiorly 3 x 2 cm. Cause of death was haemotoma and shock. Death was homicidal in nature. 9. Injured Birichram (PW-19) was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) vide Ex. P-53 who found following injuries:-- 1. Incised wound on head, parieto occipital region 10 x 0.5 cm. 2. Lacerated wound over right frontal region 3 x 0.2 cm. 3. Bruise over right side of fore head 2 x 2 cm. 4. Pain over both shoulders and tenderness. He was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for X-ray. 10. Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) also examined injured Dilip Kumar (PW-20) vide Ex. P-54 and found no sign of injury on his body and pain over right arm. 11. During the course of investigation, deceased appellant Phodol was taken into custody, he made disclosure statement of battleaxe vide Ex. P-15 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-23. Appellant Jolo @ Dashrath was also taken into custody, he made disclosure statement of battleaxe vide Ex. P-16 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-24. Deceased appellant Jagru @ Mohanlal made disclosure statement of kudari vide Ex. P-17 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-25. Appellant Anand made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-18 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-26. Appellant Laxmi made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex. P-19 and same was recovered at her instance vide Ex. P-27. Appellant Satyanarayan made disclosure statement of lathi vide Ex. P-20 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-28. Appellant Dujmati made disclosure statement of lathi vide Ex. P-21 and same was recovered at her instance vide Ex. P-29. Appellant Triveni Bai made disclosure statement of lathi vide Ex. P-22 and same was recovered at her instance vide Ex. P-30. Bloodstained clothes of the appellants were seized vide Exs. P-31 to P-38. They were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. P-39 to P-46. Seized weapons were examined by Dr. P-21 and same was recovered at her instance vide Ex. P-29. Appellant Triveni Bai made disclosure statement of lathi vide Ex. P-22 and same was recovered at her instance vide Ex. P-30. Bloodstained clothes of the appellants were seized vide Exs. P-31 to P-38. They were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. P-39 to P-46. Seized weapons were examined by Dr. Mahendra Kumar Soni (PW-6) vide Exs. P-59 & P-51. Clothes of the deceased were sealed and seized vide Ex. P-70. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and vide report Ex. P-71, presence of blood upon clothes and weapons seized from the appellants has been confirmed. During the course of treatment, dying declaration of injured Birichram (PW-19) was recorded by Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) vide Ex. P-57. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 12. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Janjgir, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir received the case on transfer for trial. 13. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence & false implication in the crime in question. They have examined defence witness Dr. Ashutosh Mishra (DW-1) who has deposed that on 4-8-2008 at about 0:15 hours, he has examined injured Duryodhan vide Ex. D-25 and found following injuries:-- ? One incised wound of 3 x 1 cm. over middle finger of left hand. ? Swelling on left fore hand extending up to 4 x 3 cm. ? Incised wound over left forearm of 4 x 1 cm. ? Multiple abrasions over right shoulder of 1-2 cm. dimension. Duryodhan was advised for X-ray. He has also examined other appellants vide Exs. D-26 to D-32, but did not notice any injury. The appellants have taken specific defence that at the time of incident, they were present in their house, the deceased persons and Birichram (PW-19) were assaulting deceased appellant Phodol by battleaxe & stick, he shouted then they came out from their house and deceased appellant Phodol who was also examined by the doctor. The appellants have taken specific defence that at the time of incident, they were present in their house, the deceased persons and Birichram (PW-19) were assaulting deceased appellant Phodol by battleaxe & stick, he shouted then they came out from their house and deceased appellant Phodol who was also examined by the doctor. On account of previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Appellant Anand has further taken defence that after hearing the sound of Phodol, he came out to save Phodol then after snatching battleaxe & stick, he assaulted the deceased persons to save deceased appellant Phodol. 14. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. 16. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, vehemently argued that relations between the parties were strain, deceased Chhedilal, Pradip Yadav @ Bablu and witness Bedram have been convicted for causing murder of accused party. Accused party have also been convicted for causing murder of Chhedilal and some persons have been convicted & sentenced by the trial Court, but they have been acquitted finally i.e. both the parties have committed murder of member of opposite party and both are members of rival group. The appellants were present in the house. Injured Birichram, three deceased persons & injured Dilip Kumar came in front of the house of the appellants, they were holding battleaxe & stick, they assaulted Phodol and caused incised wound & other injuries upon the body of Phodol on which Phodol shouted, then some accused came to save him and after snatching battleaxe & stick, they saved Phodol, they have not caused murder of the deceased persons and they have not exceeded their right of private defence of person available to them. The incident did not took place in any public place or in front of the house of the deceased, but it took place in front of the house of the appellants and presence of the appellants in their house is normal. The prosecution witnesses have utterly failed to prove the act attributed to appellants Dujmati & Triveni Bai, women members of the appellants' family present in their house. During the course of investigation, dying declaration of Birichram (PW-19) has been recorded by Dr. The prosecution witnesses have utterly failed to prove the act attributed to appellants Dujmati & Triveni Bai, women members of the appellants' family present in their house. During the course of investigation, dying declaration of Birichram (PW-19) has been recorded by Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) vide Ex. P-57 which is previous statement of witness Birichram in which he has specifically deposed that Duryodhan @ Phodol i.e. the deceased appellant, Dashrath @ Jolo and another deceased appellant Jagru @ Mohan were holding battleaxe and they have assaulted him, at that time, deceased Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand came, then he fled away from the spot. Shantilal took him to Government Hospital, Akaltara for treatment and Government Hospital, Akaltara has intimated to Police Station Akaltara vide Ex. P-52 that injured Birichram was brought to hospital for treatment which clearly reveals that only three persons have participated in the commission of offence and other persons were not present on the spot. This was the first statement of Birichram (PW-19) before public officer on 3-8-2008 at 6.15 p.m. i.e. on the same day, on the date of incident, within 6 hours of incident. Subsequently, he has improved this statement and has tried to become eyewitness though he was not the eyewitness and he has not witnessed the incident. All the witnesses of the spot are relatives. Distance between house of the complainant party and spot is about more than 1 k.m. and it was not possible for them to rush to the spot at the time of incident i.e. either they are telling lie or they reached to the spot after completion of incident and they have not witnessed the incident, but only with a view to implicate the appellants they became eyewitnesses and have deposed false statement against the appellants. Evidence of relative witnesses cannot be rejected out-rightly, but their evidence require minute scrutiny in case of relation and previous enmity, because they have a tendency to implicate all family members including women members. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary further argued that although this is case of homicidal death of three persons, but after causing blow by battleaxe to appellant Phodol, the incident took place. Using battleaxe by the complainant party or any person itself is sufficient to cause fear to the person upon whom battleaxe was used and his relatives that they may kill him and there was endanger of their life. Using battleaxe by the complainant party or any person itself is sufficient to cause fear to the person upon whom battleaxe was used and his relatives that they may kill him and there was endanger of their life. Force required and force applied in exercise of the right of private defence cannot be weighed in a golden scale. Once it is established that one party has used battleaxe, the dangerous weapon, and has caused multiple injuries and there was no public authority to help and save immediately to the injured, then no option except to assault and attack the assailant was left to second party i.e. in the present case the appellants, therefore, in the right of exercise of private defence, they caused injuries and homicidal death of deceased, may be the case that they have exceeded the right of private defence of person, but they have not committed homicidal death of three persons amounting to murder. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary also argued that the appellants were not holding dangerous weapons, but the deceased persons were holding dangerous weapons and the appellants have snatched the dangerous weapons which were seized from the spot after the incident. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary further contended that in the present case, Birichram (PW-19) is not wholly reliable witness, he is partly reliable and partly unreliable witness. Conviction may be based on the evidence of single witness if he is fully reliable or in case of partly reliable if his evidence finds corroboration from independent source. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. 17. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, placed reliance in the matter of Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 in which the Supreme Court has held that in case of fully reliable witness or partly reliable witness if his evidence finds corroboration from independent sources conviction can be solely based on it. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary further placed reliance in the matter of Jagdish Prasad and others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251 in which the Supreme Court has held that if witnessing of entire evidence is not possible, clouded testimony of single witness is not safe for basing conviction. Mr. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary further placed reliance in the matter of Jagdish Prasad and others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251 in which the Supreme Court has held that if witnessing of entire evidence is not possible, clouded testimony of single witness is not safe for basing conviction. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary also placed reliance in the matter of Prithipal Singh etc. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. etc. 2012 AIR SCW 594 in which the Supreme Court has held that testimony of solitary witness can be sufficient to convict the accused provided he is wholly reliable. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary also placed reliance in the matter of Arshad Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 AIR SCW 4542 : 2014 (2) CGLJ 104 (SC) in which the Supreme Court has held that in case of genesis of offence doubtful and right of self defence in the light of long standing enmity, conviction for murder is not sustainable. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent opposed the appeals and submitted that there is no substance in the appeals. By examining eyewitnesses Chumbai (PW-14), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), Birichram (PW-19), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) & Rajesh Yadav (PW-21), the prosecution has proved the case beyond the doubt of doubt. By taking defence and examining doctor, the appellants have admitted their presence on the spot. If submissions or defence version of the appellants are considered then the only inference would be possible that the appellants were present in front of the house, three persons died on the spot as a result of injuries, two persons sustained serious injuries in front of the house of the appellants and deceased or injured were not holding any weapon. Even if submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is considered then further inference would be possible that the deceased were holding battleaxe & stick which were snatched by the appellants who are eight in number and after snatching battleaxe & stick from the deceased & injured persons, there was no endanger of life of the appellants and there was no propriety for causing homicidal death of the deceased. This is not the defence of the appellants that after homicidal death of deceased persons they have snatched battleaxe from them. This is not the defence of the appellants that after homicidal death of deceased persons they have snatched battleaxe from them. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and defence taken by the appellants both are suggestive of the facts and are pointing towards the guilt of the appellants that only the appellants have formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly they have committed murder of three persons and attempted to commit murder of one person and also caused injuries to one person. After appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Both the parties were having enmity. Enmity is a doubled edged weapon, it may be used for commission of offence or for false implication. In the present case, the prosecution has proved that enmity was cause for commission of offence, not for false implication of the appellants. 19. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 20. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injuries found over the bodies of deceased Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand has not been subsequently disputed by the appellants, on the other hand, it is also established by evidence of Chumbai (PW-14), Bedram Yadav (PW-15), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), injured Birichram (PW-19), injured Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20), Rajesh Yadav (PW-21), Dr. M.P. Dahariya (PW-5) and autopsy reports of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand namely Exs. P-47, P-48 & P-49, respectively, that death of the deceased persons was homicidal in nature. 21. The appellants have also not disputed the grievous injuries found over the body of Birichram (PW-19), same have also been established by evidence of Birichram (PW-19), Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) and injury report Ex. P-53 which shows that injuries caused on his head were fatal in nature. 22. As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, conviction is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses namely Chumbai (PW-14), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), Birichram (PW-19), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) and Rajesh Yadav (PW-21). 23. In the present case, injured witness Birichram (PW-19), whose presence cannot be doubted, has deposed about the incident. 22. As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, conviction is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses namely Chumbai (PW-14), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), Birichram (PW-19), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) and Rajesh Yadav (PW-21). 23. In the present case, injured witness Birichram (PW-19), whose presence cannot be doubted, has deposed about the incident. In para 9 of his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that witness Bedram, deceased Cheduram, deceased Chhedilal & deceased Bablu were tried and convicted for commission of murder of one of the members of the accused party. In para 10, he has also admitted that his one brother Cheduram was murdered and except deceased Phodol @ Duryodhan & Mohan @ Jagru, all appellants have been convicted for murder of Cheduram, but finally they were acquitted. In para 11, he has further admitted that house of Bhojram where he had gone for inviting him is adjoining to the house of the appellants. 24. These evidence clearly reveal that both the parties are rival groups and having enmity since long time resulted into murder of one party by another party and also resulted into conviction for murder of members of the parties i.e. all Chumbai (PW-14), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), Birichram (PW-19), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) & Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) are undisputedly relatives, interested and inimical witnesses. There are material contradictions and omissions in their evidence, their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. and also previous statements and dying declaration of Birichram (PW-19). 25. While dealing with the question of reliability of evidence of single witness and kinds of witnesses, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vadivelu Thevar (supra) has observed in paras. 11 & 12 as follows and classified the witnesses into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable, and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable:-- (11) In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. 11 & 12 as follows and classified the witnesses into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable, (2) wholly unreliable, and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable:-- (11) In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact." The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's 'Law of Evidence' 9th Edition, at pages 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in S. 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. (12) In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution. The Supreme Court has held that in case of wholly reliable witness, conviction can be based upon the testimony of single witness, in case of wholly unreliable witness he cannot be relied and in case of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness, his evidence requires corroboration from independent sources. 26. By placing reliance upon the dictum of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vadivelu Thevar (supra), the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad (supra) has held that in case of single inimical eyewitness, in case of previous assault, proximate motive and impossibility of witnessing the entire occurrence, clouded testimony is not safe to rely, and has observed in paras. 7 & 8 as follows:-- 7. Now, let us scrutinize the testimony of P.W. 1 in the light of the observation made by this Court in the above decision. It is seen from the evidence that P.W. 1 was an arch enemy of the fifth respondent as the former had assaulted the fifth accused on a prior occasion. Probably this must have been the proximate motive for the occurrence in question. It is seen from the evidence that P.W. 1 was an arch enemy of the fifth respondent as the former had assaulted the fifth accused on a prior occasion. Probably this must have been the proximate motive for the occurrence in question. The trial court, in fact, took note of this and made the following observations: "The description given by the witness (P.W. 1) regarding the part played by each of the five accused in hitting the deceased also does not seem to be correct, because the object of assault was in fact against this witness because of the previous enmity and that he was first aimed at by accused Bawan, but escaped the assault and, therefore, in the natural course of conduct, the witness ought to have left the spot at the next moment to save himself." It is far-fetched to visualize that P.W. 1 could have witnessed the entire occurrence viz., the actual assault perpetrate on the deceased when he was fleeing for his life and thereafter hid himself inside a room of the hospital till 5 a.m. Though P.W. 1 claims to have known all the six accused persons it appears he has not mentioned the name of the accused Pangoo (acquitted) in his first report. Surprisingly, before the trial court P.W. 1 has mentioned only the names of five accused and specifically and deliberately omitted the name of the first accused in his evidence. The High Court has commented upon the conduct of P.W. 1 in its judgment stating "he deliberately tried to help the acquitted accused Mishrilal". In fact, the trial court taking a very serious view of the conduct of P.W. 1 had gone to the extent of conducting a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for launching a prosecution against P.W. 1 for perjury. 8. The evidence of P.W. 1 is found to be discrepant in its material particulars by the High Court. We, after going through the evidence, hold that it is quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of P.W. 1 whose testimony is clouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts. For all the aforementioned reasons we are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. We, after going through the evidence, hold that it is quite unsafe to act upon the evidence of P.W. 1 whose testimony is clouded with grave suspicion and serious doubts. For all the aforementioned reasons we are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. In the result, the conviction of all the appellants (accused 2-5) under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed therefor are set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The appeals are thus allowed." 27. By placing reliance upon the matter of Vadivelu Thevar (supra), the Supreme Court in the matter of Prithipal Singh (supra) has held that the testimony of witness can be sufficient to convict the accused provided he is wholly reliable and observed in para 26 as follows:-- "26. This Court has consistently held 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. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or 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. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 ; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 ). 28. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 ; and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 ). 28. Evidence of inimical, interested, partial and relative witness cannot be rejected outrightly on the ground of their interestedness, enmity and relation. Their evidence requires close scrutiny before accepting it. Even otherwise, relatives are the last person to spare real culprit and implicate the innocent falsely, though they may implicate some innocent belonging to some family and in case of interested witness, witnesses may be interested in false implication of accused persons, but being a relative did not spare the real culprit only with a view to implicate falsely their enemy. 29. While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of interested witnesses and need of deep scrutiny, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and others AIR 2004 SC 1053 has observed in para 15 that "But at the same time if the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the Court has a duty to analyze the evidence with deeper scrutiny and then come to a conclusion as to whether it has a ring of truth or there is reason for holding that the evidence was biased. Whenever a plea is taken that the witness is partisan or had any hostility towards the accused foundation for the same has to be laid. If the materials show that there is partisan approach, as indicated above the Court has to analyze the evidence with care and caution." 30. While dealing with same question in the light of relationship, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 472 has held in para 13 that "A close relative, who is a very natural witness in the circumstances of a case, cannot be regarded as an 'interested witness'. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because had some animus with the accused or for some other reason." 31. While dealing with same question the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because had some animus with the accused or for some other reason." 31. While dealing with same question the Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2008 SC 2436 has held that relationship per se does not affect credibility of witness; merely because witness happens to be a relative of victim of crime, he/she cannot be characterized as "interested" witness. The Supreme Court has observed in para 7 as follows:-- "........even otherwise it will be erroneous to lay down as a rule of universal application that non-examination of a public witness by itself gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or that the testimony of a relative of the victim, which is otherwise credit-worthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. Insofar as the question of credit-worthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim is concerned, it is well settled that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of their interest in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. It is trite that the term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive." 32. In the matter of Sandeep vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 1103 , the Supreme Court has held that in case where victim and accused are known to witness, his evidence would be material and cannot be criticized on ground that as witness was knowing the father of the accused, he is interested witness. 33. In case of interested or inimical witnesses the Court is required to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 34. 33. In case of interested or inimical witnesses the Court is required to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 34. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law and dicta of the Supreme Court relating to reliability of evidentiary value of interested and relative witness, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witness, we have to examine and scrutinize the evidence of Chumbai (PW-14), Gayatri Bai (PW-17), Birichram (PW-19), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) & Rajesh Yadav (PW-21). 35. Birichram (PW-19) is injured witness. As per his evidence, when he went to the house of Bhojram, neighbour of the appellants, for inviting him for sixth day birth of newly born child (chhati), the appellants abused him, they were holding battleaxe & stick, he requested them not to assault, then appellant Phodol holding battleaxe, Jolo @ Dashrath holding battleaxe, Jagru @ Mohanlal holding kudari and remaining appellants holding stick assaulted him over his forehead & waist, at that time, Chumbai (PW-14) & Gayatri Bai (PW-17) came, they also requested the appellants not to assault. Unfortunate deceased Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand also came to the spot. The appellants firstly assaulted Chhedilal then this witness fled away from the spot and after hiding himself behind the peepal tree he witnessed the incident. All appellants assaulted Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand. Deceased appellant Phodol crushed their head by blunt part of battleaxe then Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) & Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) came whom also they assaulted. Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) told them that he is guest then they told him to run away from the spot on which he rushed from the spot. Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) tied his head by cloth and went to his house where he fell down. This witness went to Police Station Akaltara with Shantilal by his motorcycle from where he was brought to hospital where he was treated. He was referred to Bilaspur hospital where he was admitted for nine days. 36. Chumbai (PW-14) has corroborated the evidence of Birichram (PW-19) and has deposed that all appellants encircled the injured persons and killed them. Deceased appellant Phodol was holding battleaxe, Jolo @ Dashrath was also holding battleaxe, deceased appellant Jagru @ Mohanlal was holding kudari and remaining were holding stick, she shouted. Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) & Gayatri Bai (PW-17) have also witnessed the incident. Deceased appellant Phodol was holding battleaxe, Jolo @ Dashrath was also holding battleaxe, deceased appellant Jagru @ Mohanlal was holding kudari and remaining were holding stick, she shouted. Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) & Gayatri Bai (PW-17) have also witnessed the incident. She went to Bedram Yadav (PW-15) and informed the incident on which he telephoned to the police whereupon the police came whom she lodged dehati nalishi vide Ex. P-57. 37. Gayatri Bai (PW-17) has corroborated the evidence of Birichram (PW-19). Injured Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW-20) and Rajesh Yadav (PW-21) has also corroborated the evidence of Birichram (PW-19). 38. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length. They have admitted the rivalry murder of member of one party by another party, their conviction and acquittal of appellant party for causing murder of Cheduram, member of the complainant party. Place of the incident is in front of the house of the appellants. By replying to the questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. all the appellants have admitted the presence of deceased persons and injured persons and their presence inside the house or outside the house. The prosecution has not explained the injuries found over the body of deceased appellant Phodol Duryodhan, but same have been proved by Dr. Ashutosh Mishra (DW-1) vide Ex. D-25. Size of injuries are not trifle, but also not of considerable size. However, evidence of Dr. Ashutosh Mishra (DW-1) reveals that deceased appellant Phodol sustained injury at the time of incident. 39. This is case of homicidal death of three persons and injury to two persons. Injuries found over the bodies of the deceased were incised wounds, lacerated wounds and depressed fracture of head. Injuries found over the body of Birichram (PW-19) were also incised wounds, lacerated wounds and bruises. This shows that during the course of incident, sharp edged weapon has been used. Both the parties have admitted that battleaxe was used during the course of incident. 40. As per the defence, complainant party came in front of the house of the appellants and firstly assaulted Phodol. Injuries caused to Phodol were simple in nature. Other appellants have not sustained any injury and had not claimed that they had also been assaulted by the complainant party, but three persons of the complainant party died on the spot as a result of fatal injuries caused by sharp and blunt object. Injuries caused to Phodol were simple in nature. Other appellants have not sustained any injury and had not claimed that they had also been assaulted by the complainant party, but three persons of the complainant party died on the spot as a result of fatal injuries caused by sharp and blunt object. Birichram (PW-19) also sustained injuries by sharp edged and blunt object. In case of holding of sharp edged weapon by complainant party, all appellants would have received injuries. Snatching of battleaxe from complainant party without sustaining any injury by other appellants does not appear to be probable, normal and natural. Battleaxe was not lying on the spot and it has been recovered from hidden place at the instance of the appellants. If it is considered that battleaxe had been snatched by the appellant party who are eight in number then virtually, the position would be that complainant party were armless and staying, on the spot armless also does not appear to be natural and in that situation they would have fled away from spot to save them from the armed appellants. After snatching the dangerous weapon there was no propriety for causing single blow to any of the deceased or the injured by the appellant party. It clearly reveals and is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants were holding battleaxe and other weapons and they have caused homicidal death of three persons namely Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and also caused fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19) by battleaxe and other weapons. 41. Much stress has been given by counsel for the appellants upon the previous statement of Birichram (PW-19) Ex. P-57 in which he has stated that three persons namely Phodol @ Duryodhan, Jolo @ Dashrath & Jagru @ Mohanlal were holding battle and they assaulted him at the same time, deceased Chhedilal, Bablu, Bhuru @ Parmanand and others came then the appellants assaulted them. He fell down and fled away from the spot, thereafter, he went to Akaltara for treatment. As per his evidence, he has seen only three persons holding dangerous weapons namely deceased appellant Duryodhan @ Phodol, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo & deceased appellant Mohanlal @ Jagru. As per memo of Jagru @ Mohanlal, he was Jagru @ Mohanlal. Even seizure Ex. P-25 and his arrest memo Ex. P-44 reveal the thumb impression of Jagru @ Mohanlal. 42. Dehati nalishi Ex. As per memo of Jagru @ Mohanlal, he was Jagru @ Mohanlal. Even seizure Ex. P-25 and his arrest memo Ex. P-44 reveal the thumb impression of Jagru @ Mohanlal. 42. Dehati nalishi Ex. P-57A has been lodged by Chumbai (PW-14). As per the dehati nalishi, she has witnessed the incident and all appellants were present and assaulted the deceased persons and Birichram (PW-19). She has also deposed in her evidence that Phodol, Jolo & Jagru were holding battleaxe & kudari and remaining were holding stick. Gayatri Bai (PW-17) has also deposed same thing. As per their evidence, three persons were having dangerous weapons and others were having stick. 43. Appellants Dujmati & Triveni Bai are women. Dujmati is wife of deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan and Triveni Bai is wife of appellant Dashrath @ Jolo. All these witnesses have not deposed specific role played by these women appellants. Their presence in their houses or in front of the houses at the time of incident where their family members and complainant party were quarrelling or their family members were assaulting complainant party, was not unnatural. Assisting their father Dashrath @ Jolo by appellants Anand & Laxmi at the time of causing homicidal death of three persons is also not unnatural. 44. These witnesses are not fully reliable, but they are partly reliable i.e. wholly not reliable and wholly not unreliable. Their evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of each others, promptly lodged dehati nalishi and medical evidence, and it can be safely inferred that deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan, deceased appellant Jagru @ Mohanlal, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo, appellant Satyanarayan and appellant Anand have caused homicidal death of three persons and have caused fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19). 45. Formation of unlawful assembly having its common object and knowledge of common object are matters of fact. As held in the matters of Bhargavan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala JT 2003 (9) SC 513, Badal Murmu & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal2014 AIR SCW 1137, Eknath Ganpat Aher & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 2010 (3) CGLJ 57 (SC), Mohansingh and others vs. State of M.P. 2005 (4) MPLJ 183 , Hallu and others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1936 and Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal2014 AIR SCW 1137, Eknath Ganpat Aher & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 2010 (3) CGLJ 57 (SC), Mohansingh and others vs. State of M.P. 2005 (4) MPLJ 183 , Hallu and others vs. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1936 and Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773 there cannot be straight-jacket formula for arriving at a finding as to who was the member of unlawful assembly and for what object the unlawful assembly was formed. An unlawful assembly may initially be formed for achieving any object described in Section 141 of the IPC and at subsequent stage, the object of certain members of unlawful assembly may change, in that circumstance, the unlawful assembly may be of more than one part especially in the light of its common object as it is a matter of common knowledge that normally, the prosecution would not be in a position to lead evidence to show that firstly the assembly was gathered, they discussed the matter and decided their object, thereafter, they public the same as to what was their object and thereafter, proceed for achieving that object. It can be inferred and proved by cogent evidence. 46. In the present case, two persons were holding battleaxe and one was holding kudari. Deceased were armless and they were not holding any weapon. One by one three persons have been killed. Association of the appellants at the time of causing such homicidal death of three persons one by one and holding weapons by itself is sufficient for drawing inference that deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan, deceased appellant Mohanlal @ Jagru, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo, appellant Satyanarayan & appellant Anand have formed unlawful assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons, their common object was to kill and commit murder of their rival group namely Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and also to cause fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19) and in furtherance of common object of the assembly, members of the unlawful assembly have caused homicidal death amounting to murder of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and also caused fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19). Their specific and active participation or overt-act is not required to be proved by the prosecution. 47. Their specific and active participation or overt-act is not required to be proved by the prosecution. 47. As held in Arshad Hussain (supra), in the present case, long enmity is not disputed and there was no opportunity to exercise the right of private defence especially when as per defence of the appellants the appellant party has succeeded in snatching the deadly weapon i.e. the deceased were not holding any arm. The case of Arshad Hussain (supra) is distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. 48. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and defence taken by the appellants are sufficient to establish the fact that deceased appellant Phodol @ Duryodhan, deceased appellant Mohanlal @ Jagru, appellant Dashrath @ Jolo, appellant Satyanarayan & appellant Anand have formed unlawful assembly having its common object to commit murder of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and cause fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19) and in furtherance of common object of the assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons and caused homicidal death amounting to murder of Chhedilal, Bablu & Bhuru @ Parmanand and also caused fatal injuries to Birichram (PW-19). 49. Evidence reveals that appellants Dujmati & Triveni Bai (appellants No. 4 & 5 respectively in Cr. A. No. 599/2009) were helpless spectators at the time of incident as members of the appellants family. Even otherwise, in Indian culture, society and system, active participation in commission of murder of more than one person that too by battleaxe by their women family members is not common and natural unless it is proved specifically. On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any credible, clinching and reliable evidence against appellants Dujmati & Triveni Bai. 50. Consequently, Cr. A. No. 598/2009 filed on behalf of Dashrath @ Jolo I & Anand is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Cr. A. No. 599/2009 is partly allowed. Conviction & sentences of appellant No. 1 Satyanarayan and appellant No. 3 Laxmi under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC are hereby maintained. Cr. A. No. 599/2009 is partly allowed. Conviction & sentences of appellant No. 1 Satyanarayan and appellant No. 3 Laxmi under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC are hereby maintained. Conviction & sentences of appellant No. 4 Dujmati and appellant No. 5 Triveni Bai under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section149, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. They be set at liberty at once, if not required in any other case. Appeal Partly Allowed.