JUDGMENT Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/convicts Dukhaharan Singh Mura and Bibhisan Singh Mura being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No.31 of 2000/ S.T.No.6A of 2001 on 04.05.2002/06.05.2002 holding the appellants/convicts guilty and thereby convicting them for committing an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life. They were also found guilty and convicted for committing an offence punishable Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years. However, both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. A brief resume of the prosecution case emerging from the F.I.R. is that the de facto complainant Dubraj Singh Mura is a resident of Ajodhya Tola Gardih under Police Station Bagmundih, District Purulia. On 11.09.1995 at about 10 P.M. his younger brother Ramdhan Singh Mura and his son Buddheswar Singh Mura were returning home from the paddy field after inspecting the same. When they reached near the house of his elder brother Dukhaharan Singh Mura, then Dukhaharan Singh Mura and his two sons, namely, Sukhdeb Singh Mura and Bibhisan Singh Mura being armed with bows and arrows, Bhojali and Daoli attacked Ramdhan and assaulted him causing serious injury and he fell down. They also assaulted Buddheswar causing fatal injuries. Ramdhan died on the spot. On hearing hue and cry the de-facto complainant came out and witnessed the incident. Buddheswar somehow reached their house running with fatal injuries. Being frightened of the accused persons they could not go to the place of occurrence. In the following morning the villagers came and information was sent to Biswanath Murmu. The de-facto complainant had asked his son Sambhu Nath Singh Mura and Sikari Singh Mura to inform the police station. The de-facto complainant further alleged that some notices were issued in respect of some of their inundated lands in Kuchri Rakha Mouza, which were retained by his elder brother Dukhaharan Singh Mura. His brother Ramdhan and son Buddheswar demanded their notices from Dukhaharan Singh Mura and out of that grudge the accused persons had killed Ramdhan and assaulted Buddheswar causing grievous injuries to him. 3. His brother Ramdhan and son Buddheswar demanded their notices from Dukhaharan Singh Mura and out of that grudge the accused persons had killed Ramdhan and assaulted Buddheswar causing grievous injuries to him. 3. The de-facto complainant thereafter lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Bagmundi P.S. Case No.67/95 dated 12.09.95 under Sections 302/326/307/34 I.P.C. was registered. That case was investigated into and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the three accused persons, namely, Dukhaharan Singh Mura, Sukhdeb Singh Mura and Bibhisan Singh Mura under Sections 302/326/307/34 I.P.C. Before commitment of the case the accused Sukhdeb Singh Mura had died and the case was filed against him. 4. The Learned Trial Judge on appearance of the accused Dukhaharan Singh Mura and Bibhisan Singh Mura and on perusal of the materials available on record including the police papers as well as upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties framed charge against both the accused persons under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and also under Section 326/34 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who however pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the Trial Court in all 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The Learned Trial Judge proceeded with the trial and after considering all the evidence led by the prosecution, including the oral testimony of the injured witness and other supporting oral as well as the documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the charges levelled against the present accused/appellants and accordingly recorded their convictions as aforesaid by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.05.2002/06.05.2002. Hence the present appeal. 6. Mr. Navnil De Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Hence the present appeal. 6. Mr. Navnil De Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He pointed out some variations apart from the evidence adduced by those witnesses and highlighted some infirmities in the prosecution case which are as follows:- a) That although the F.I.R. maker Dubraj Singh Mura (P.W.1) claimed in the First Information Report that he saw the incident, but in evidence he stated that he heard about the incident from his son Buddheswar Singh Mura; b) P.W.1 although sent information about the incident through his son Sambhunath Singh Mura and Shikari Singh, but he lodged the F.I.R. on the following morning after arrival of police and so the chance of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out; c) The G.D. Entry, which was made on the basis of information given by Sambhunath Singh Mura and Shikari Singh must be treated as F.I.R. being the first in point of time, but the same has not been produced or exhibited which raises adverse presumption against the prosecution case; d) P.W.5 Buddheswar Singh Mura has made contradictory statements as regards the name of his assailants’ e) P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.6 have made contradictory statements regarding the name of the assailants although they all claimed to have heard from P.W.5; f) The weapons of offence, that is, ‘Daoli, Bhojali, Bows and Arrows’ were not produced in Court nor were identified by any of the P.W.s. including P.W.5. 7. Summing up the aforesaid contentions the learned Counsel concluded that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to bring home the charge brought against the appellants and, thus, the conviction cannot be sustained and they are entitled to an order of acquittal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. He cited the decisions reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 366 (L.L.Kale, V. State of Maharashtra and others) and reported in JT 2001 (3) SC 262 (Sohan & Anr. V. State of Haryana) respectively in support of his contentions. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Manjit Singh supported the prosecution case submitting that the principal grounds on which the defence has assailed the judgment and order of conviction is without any substance and merits no consideration. According to the Learned State Counsel, the impugned judgment is well-contained and well-reasoned and thus deserves no interference. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Manjit Singh supported the prosecution case submitting that the principal grounds on which the defence has assailed the judgment and order of conviction is without any substance and merits no consideration. According to the Learned State Counsel, the impugned judgment is well-contained and well-reasoned and thus deserves no interference. His contention may be summarized in the following lines:- a) The First Information Report is an earliest version of a cognizable offence given to police by the informant which puts the law in motion. It is not necessary that it must be lodged by an eye witness only. Any person having knowledge about the incident can lodge the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the informant in Court; b) P.W.5 has categorically stated that they were attacked and assaulted by all the three accused persons in front of their (accused) house and such evidence remained unassailed’ c) The defence did not even put any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that any other person had assaulted the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura and P.W.5 Buddheswar Singh Mura; d) From the Inquest Report (Ext.2/2) and from the evidence of P.W.4, it is established that the dead body of the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura was recovered from the courtyard of the house of the accused Dukhaharan Singh Mura. But, the accused did not give any explanation as to how or why the dead body of the deceased was lying in their courtyard. Therefore, as per mandate of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the accused are saddled with the burden of proving as to how and under what circumstances the dead body of the deceased was lying in their courtyard but they have miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon them ; e) Non production of the seized articles in Court does not hit the merit of the prosecution case specially when such seizure went unchallenged; f) Remissness in investigation is no ground to acquit the accused if there is enough evidence to establish the guilt 9. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution has well succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and he insisted upon dismissal of the appeal. 10. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution has well succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and he insisted upon dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties in the light of the decisions placed. We have also very carefully read between the lines of the entire prosecution evidence. 11. Now coming to the prosecution case we find that P.W.5 Buddheswar Singh Mura, who was accompanying the deceased, is the main star witness of the prosecution case. He deposed that the incident in question took place on 7th day of Bhadra about 7 years ago at about 10 P.M. At that time he and his uncle Ramdhan were returning from the paddy field and were proceeding towards their house. When they reached in front of the house of Dukhoharan, they were attacked by Dukhoharan, Bibhisan and Sukhdeb. At first Bibhisan pushed him. As a result he fell down there when Bibhisan assaulted him with a Tabla on his right cheek, left ear and by the side of left abdomen and on left palm. As a result he lost his senses then and there. Subsequently, he came to know Dukhoharan, Bibhisan and Sukhdeb assaulted his uncle Ramdhan with Tangi. After sometime when he regained his senses to some extent he went to his house. On being asked by his elder brother he stated that he was assaulted by Dukhoharan, Bibhisan and Sukhdeb. He then again lost his senses. He regained his senses at Bagmundi P.H.C. wherefrom he was referred to Bankura Hospital. He further deposed that his left ear was partly chopped off due to assault by the accused persons and due to such injury of his ear he is not in a position to hear properly. His right eye has become partly disturbed and he is not in a position to see properly at night. Due to injury on his right cheek he is also feeling pain in his teeth. In Cross-examination P.W.5 stated that on the date of incident they had been to Barabahal and they were there for about 3 to 4 hours. His right eye has become partly disturbed and he is not in a position to see properly at night. Due to injury on his right cheek he is also feeling pain in his teeth. In Cross-examination P.W.5 stated that on the date of incident they had been to Barabahal and they were there for about 3 to 4 hours. He stated further that while they reached in front of the house of the accused they were gheraoed by the accused persons and all on a sudden the accused persons started assaulting them. They were attacked from behind. He fell down in the Kuli-Rasta to their village. Blood fell down on the door of the house of Dukhoharan. He stated yet further that after receiving assault at the first instance he fell down and that he went to his house after one hour since when he was assaulted by the accused persons and that on the following day in the morning he was taken to Ajodhya hospital. He admitted not to have stated to the I.O. that at first Bibhisan pushed him and he fell down and then he assaulted him by Tabla and that after sometime he regained his senses and then he went to his house. He claimed to have stated to I.O. that all the accused persons assaulted Ramdhan with Tangi, which he came to know later on and that on being asked by his elder brother he stated that all the three accused persons, namely, Dukhoharan, Bibhisan and Sukhdeb assaulted him. He disclosed the name of his elder brother is Sambhu. He further admitted not to have stated to the I.O. that Sukhdeb Singh Mura assaulted his uncle Ramdhan with a Daoli on his head. He further claimed to have stated to the I.O. that Sukhdeb Singh Mura assaulted him with Daoli and that due to such assault he sustained injury and fled away from there. 12. P.W.13 S.I. of police Anadi Nath Panda, the Investigating Officer stated that he held inquest over the dead body of Ramdhan Singh Mura and prepared Inquest Report in presence of witnesses and on his identification the Inquest Report was marked as Ext.2/2. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of the injured Buddheswar Singh Mura and sent him to the hospital for medical treatment. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of the injured Buddheswar Singh Mura and sent him to the hospital for medical treatment. In cross-examination P.W.13 stated that he had noticed the dead body of Ramdhan Singh Mura in the courtyard of the house of Dukhohran Singh Mura. In cross-examination P.W.13 was confronted with the statements made by P.W.5 before him and he disclosed that P.W.5 Buddheswar Singh Mura had stated to him that Sukhdeb Singh Mura has assaulted his uncle with a Daoli on his head. P.W.13 further made it clear that P.W.5 did not state to him that all the accused persons had assaulted Ramdhan with Tangi and that he came to know such fact later on and that P.W.5 also did not state to him that on being asked by his elder brother, he had stated that all the three accused persons namely Dukhoharan, Bibhisan and Sukhdeb had assaulted him. 13. In the cross-examination of P.W.5, there are no material omissions or contradictions so far as the core or substratum of the prosecution case is concerned. Surprisingly enough he was not even given any suggestion that he did not at all see any incident or that no such incident took place at all or that he was not at all assaulted by any of the accused persons. Further interesting and noticeable fact is that P.W.13 was also not confronted with reference to the statement made by P.W.5 that while they were returning from the paddy field and while they reached in front of the house of the accused they were gheraoed by the accused persons and they were assaulted by the accused persons. On the contrary from the cross-examination of P.W.5 and P.W.13 it appears that the presence of P.W.5 and the death of the deceased at the place of occurrence are admitted facts. To be more precise nothing tangible could be elicited in their cross-examination to impair their credibility. Therefore, we find no scar in the evidence of P.W.5 and we find it trustworthy and can be safely relied upon. 14. P.W.1 Dubraj Mura, P.W.4 Jhantu Singh Mura and P.W.6 Sambhu Mura are the post occurrence witnesses and they heard about the incident from P.W.5. P.W.4 deposed that P.W.5 sustained severe nature of injuries on his person due to the assault by the accused persons. 14. P.W.1 Dubraj Mura, P.W.4 Jhantu Singh Mura and P.W.6 Sambhu Mura are the post occurrence witnesses and they heard about the incident from P.W.5. P.W.4 deposed that P.W.5 sustained severe nature of injuries on his person due to the assault by the accused persons. He, further, deposed that the dead body of Ramdhan was lying in the house of Bibhisan and that police held inquest over the dead body of Ramdhan in his presence and he signed the Inquest Report. 15. As has already been stated P.W.5 is the injured, who was accompanying the deceased at the material point of time. P.W.1 is the father of P.W.5, P.W.4 is the younger brother of P.W.5 and P.W.6 is the elder brother of P.W.5. So it is quite natural and normal that they saw P.W.5 returned home in the fateful night sustaining severe injuries and they heard about the incident as well as the name of his assailants from P.W.5. Cumulatively, we find that there is ring of truth in the oral testimonies of those witnesses which cannot be discarded merely on the ground of some technicalities. 16. P.W.5 is an injured eye witness and his evidence stands on higher pedestal. There is no reason to either disbelieve his version or his presence at the place of occurrence. It is well-settled position of law that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable and that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the mandate of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In fact, it is the not the number or quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. 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. 17. P.W.11 Dr. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. 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. 17. P.W.11 Dr. Dipak Kumar Basak conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of Ramdhan Singh Mura on 13.09.1995 and found the following injuries:- i) 2” x ½” sharp-penetrating injury – penetrating into the cranial cavity injuring maninjes and Brain, depth about 10” over the right temporal region of the skull, associated with fracture of the skull. ii) 3” x ½” sharp-cut injury over the posterior aspect of the head, injury was bone-deep. iii) 8” long, depth about 2” injury over the left lateral aspect of the neck injuring muscles at the upper part of the neck iv) Dr. Basak opined that the cause of death was due to effects of the aforesaid injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 18. Supporting evidence in this regard is also furnished by the Inquest Report (Ext.2/2) in which the I.O. noted the injuries sent by him on Ramdhan’s dead body during the inquest. The defence did not make any cross-examination to the Doctor (P.W.11) on his opinion so as to rule out the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura. 18) P.W.12 Dr. Ramkrishna Mondal examined P.W.5 on 12.09.1995 at Purulia Sadar Hospital and found the following injuries on his person:- i) From left lateral angle of eye to parotid region, approximately 5 ½ “ in length. The zygomatic bone was cut. ii) Sharp cut injury, half circle, approximately 4” length up to bone deep on the left side of the face. iii) 1” long punctured wound on the left side of the chest, one at the label of 10th rib and one at the label of 8th rib. iv) Lacerated injury at the root of the left thumb. v) 4” long stitched wound over right side of face on the mandibular region. vi) 2” long sharp cut injury over left arm. According to him the injuries were dangerous to life. iv) Lacerated injury at the root of the left thumb. v) 4” long stitched wound over right side of face on the mandibular region. vi) 2” long sharp cut injury over left arm. According to him the injuries were dangerous to life. In cross-examination the said Doctor (P.W.12) stated that it is most unlikely that so many injuries of present nature would be caused if a person falls on the sharp edged end of any stone or broken glass. 19. From the evidence of P.W.13 (I.O.) and P.W.4 being corroborated by the Inquest Report (Ext.2/2) it is established that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 12.09.1995 from the courtyard of the house of the accused Dukhoharan Singh Mura and such factum of recovery of the dead body of the deceased remained unassailed. So once the prosecution has established such circumstance, then by virtue of the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard which is inside the house of the accused comes within the exclusive knowledge of the accused 20. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 21. Therefore, the burden to prove as to how and under what circumstances Ramdhan Singh Mura expired shifted on the accused appellants and appellants miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon them. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in ( (2006) 10 SCC 681 :(2007 Cr L J 20). 22. Deliberating upon the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants to the effect that the G.D. Entry which was entered on the basis of information lodged by Sambhunath Singh Mura and Shikari Sing must have been treated as F.I.R. being first in point of time we would like to say that mere giving intimation to the police and making a G.D. Entry on the basis of such information is not sustainable in absence of any cross-examination of the I.O. with regard to the F.I.R. (vide Garjan Sahu & Ors. V. State of Orissa reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. 1880). V. State of Orissa reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. 1880). Further, it is well settled position that cryptic message regarding an occurrence cannot be termed as First Information Report (vide Patai alias Krishna Kumar V. State of U.P. reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. 2815 (S.C.)). Yet further the Supreme Court of India held in the case of Ram Singh Baiji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1994 Cr.L.J.3067 that any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as First Information Report. 23) Further contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants centering the non-production of the seized weapons of offence, that is, “Daoli, Bhojali, Bows and Arrows” we find that the defence has failed to show that they have at all been prejudiced on account of such lapse committed by the I.O. Moreover, the seizure of the offending weapons was not disputed during trial. It is well-settled that remissness and inefficiency of the Investigating Agency should be no ground to acquit a person if there is enough evidence on record to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.(vide Kashinath Mondal V. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 Cr.L.J.3974). 24. The oral testimony of Dr. Dipak Kumar Basak (P.W.11) unerringly leads to the only conclusion that injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura caused his death and the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. Further the evidence adduced by Dr. Ramkrishna Mondal (P.W.12) establishes the injuries found by him on the person of P.W.5 Buddheswar Singh Mura were dangerous to life. 25. The evidence of the injured eye witness P.W.5 received full corroboration from the medical evidence. Also the abject failure on the part of the accused/appellants to discharge the burden to prove as to how and under what circumstances the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura expired or how and why the dead body of the deceased was lying in their courtyard leave no room for harbouring any doubt that on 11.09.1995 at about 10 P.M. when the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura and P.W.5 Buddheswar were returning home from the paddy field, the accused /appellants attacked them in front of their house and assaulted them being armed with Daoli, Bhojali. Bows and Arrows causing instant death of the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura and also causing serious injuries to P.W.5. 26. Bows and Arrows causing instant death of the deceased Ramdhan Singh Mura and also causing serious injuries to P.W.5. 26. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused to its hilt and the Learned Trial Court has rightly held that the guilt is proved against the appellants. 27. The sum total of the foregoing discussion is that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has held the appellants guilty. We do not find any merit in the appeal. No interference is called for in exercise of our appellate powers. The Appeal must fail and stands dismissed. The office is directed to send down Lower Court Records at once. I agree. Appeal dismissed.