JUDGMENT :- Amitav K. Gupta, J. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2002 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No.675/1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C in short) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The prosecution story as narrated in the fardbeyan of the informant, Bhairo Bara (P.W.-13), is that Mangal Panna (deceased), Anup Panna, Halan Panna(P.W.-1) along with family members had come to attend the Chengai Sabha held on 3.6.1997 between 6p.m. to 8 p.m. After the conclusion of the Sabha the informant Bhairo Bara (P.W.-13), Mangal Panna (deceased), Anup Panna and Vincent Kujur(P.W.-7) were sleeping on the outer veranda of the house and Peter Kumar(P.W.-12), Father Korlenius, James, informant's wife Mangri Bara, informant's dauther-in-law Pachola Bara (P.W.-2), Satin Toppo (P.W.-8), Junga Kujur, Sushila Panna (P.W.-5) wife of late Mangal Panna (deceased) were sleeping inside the house. It is alleged that at mid night i.e. 12 O'clock, Thakur Oraon armed with tangi, Dharu Oraon, Basua Oraon, Tiwari Oraon, Choteya Oraon, Birsu Oraon & Tripurari Sao, all armed with lathi along with a mob of 150-200 persons variously armed with lathi, Danda and tangi came there shouting slogans. It is stated that Thakur Oraon levelled allegations against, Mangal Panna that he was the propagator of Christianity and assaulted Mangal Panna with tangi on his head, due to which Mangal Panna fell down and other members of the crowd assaulted Mangal Panna with lathi. That Thakur Oraon assaulted him (the informant) with tangi on the head and threatened to kill him; that Dharu Oraon assaulted on his back with lathi and other persons assaulted Vincent Kujur (P.W.-7) and Anup Panna. It is stated that the informant fainted due to the assault and when he regained consciousness he saw Vincent Kujur, Anup Panna and Mangal Panna seriously injured and Mangal Panna lying in an unconscious state. That Mangal Panna was brought inside the house where he died in the morning; that Anup Panna and others left for Lohardaga in the night itself for treatment. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Kisko P.S. 29/1997 dated 5.6.1997 was registered. Investigation was taken by S.I. Sri. Satanand Singh. That Mangal Panna was brought inside the house where he died in the morning; that Anup Panna and others left for Lohardaga in the night itself for treatment. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan Kisko P.S. 29/1997 dated 5.6.1997 was registered. Investigation was taken by S.I. Sri. Satanand Singh. In course of investigation the inquest report (Ext.-5) was prepared. The dead body of Mangal Panna was sent for postmortem and the statement of witnesses were recorded whereafter charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) accordingly cognizance was taken and the case committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges were framed against seven accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined altogether 15 witnesses, namely, Halan Panna (P.W.-1), Pachola Bara (P.W.-2), Jasmain Kujur (P.W.-3), Sarita Toppo (P.W.-4), Sushila Panna (P.W.-5), Abha Kujur (P.W.-6), Vincent Kujur (P.W.-7), Satin Toppo (P.W.-8), Baleshwar Kujur (P.W.-9), Missi Toppo (P.W.-10), Bela Kachchap (P.W.-11), Paster Peter Kumar (P.W.-12), Bhairo Bara (P.W.-13), Dr. B.K.Pandey (P.W.-14), Satanand Singh (P.W.-15). On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused-persons was recorded and the defence is of complete denial. On the basis of the evidence on record the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga acquitted six of the seven accused and convicted the appellant, Thakur Oraon by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter-alia on the ground that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution could not prove the mens rea as well as motive of the murder; that this is a case of culpable homicide due to a single blow and even if the prosecution case is believed to be true then at best the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 304 part-II of IPC and not for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate that injury report of P.W.13 i.e. informant was not produced and injured Uday Anup Panna was also not examined and the prosecution has suppressed material evidence which casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case; that testimony of P.W.-13 is not supported by other witnesses; that there is material contradictions in the deposition of P.W.-13 vis-a-vis the fardbeyan, which is indicative of the fact that P.W.-13 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer in para-17 of his cross-examination has admitted that fardbeyan of Uday Anup Panna was handed over to him by Lohardaga Police. Thus the statement of P.W.-13 can not be treated as the F.I.R rather his statement is hit by provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. and the prosecution has suppressed the actual F.I.R. In support of his argument he has relied upon a decision reported in 2004 (4) JLJR, 144. In course of argument he has also submitted that the adverse inference should be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act in terms of the decision reported in 2011(1) JLJR, 231. It has also been submitted that all the witnesses are interested as they are followers of Christianity and no independent witnesses of the locality have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. On the said grounds it is contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law or on facts. 6. On the other hand learned APP has argued that P.W.-7, Vincent Kujur and P.W.-13, informant, are the injured eye witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and independent witness P.W.-9, Baleshwar Kujur has corroborated the testimony of P.W.7 & 13. The Investigating Officer has deposed that the fardbeyan of Uday Anup Panna was recorded at 9.15 a.m. bythe police officer of Lohardaga P.S, whereas the I.O recorded the fardbeyan P.W.-14 at 5.a.m at Kisko where the occurrence took place thus the fardbeyan of the informant is not hit by the provisions of Section 162 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the P.W.-13 informant and P.W.-7 were medically examined and their injury report was prepared as deposed by (P.W.-15) the Investigating Officer. The informant and independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the learned District & Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of the evidence and material on record, thus the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 7. To appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel, it is relevant to analyse the evidence on record. Admittedly, P.W.-15, the Investigating Officer had received the statement of Uday Anup Panna, which was recorded by Lohardaga Police. P.W.-15 has testified that the said statement of Uday Anup Panna was received by him at 9:15 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga. However, P.W.-15 has deposed that on 5.6.1997 at 4:15 a.m. on receipt of information regarding a fatal fight between two communities he had made a station diary entry and proceeded to verify the veracity of the information. He reached near village Charhu and he saw P.W.-13 and other injured witnesses taking the dead body of Mangal Panna to Lohardaga. P.W.-15 testified that he recorded the statement of P.W.13 Bhairo Bara, at 5 a.m. at village Charhu and sent the statement to Kisko P.S. for registering a case and he took up the investigation. It is evident that P.W.15 had recorded the statement of P.W.-13 at 5 a.m. on 5/6/1997 whereas he had received the statement of Uday Anup Panna recorded by Lohardaga Police, at 9:15 a.m. It is apparent that the statement of P.W.13 was recorded by P.W.-15 prior to the receipt of the statement of Uday Anup Panna as recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Lohardaga P.S. It is evident that P.W.-15 had already commenced the investigation on the basis of the information of P.W.-13 detailing the occurrence. P.W.-15 has testified that he had recorded the statement of Uday Anup Panna under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the said statement is incorporated in para 18 of the case diary. In the emergent scenario it is evident that the statement of Uday Anup Panna, as recorded by the Lohardagga police was received by P.W.-15 after he had commenced the investigation accordingly such a statement can not be termed to be an F.I.R. rather such a statement can be treated as a statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C.. In the emergent scenario it is evident that the statement of Uday Anup Panna, as recorded by the Lohardagga police was received by P.W.-15 after he had commenced the investigation accordingly such a statement can not be termed to be an F.I.R. rather such a statement can be treated as a statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C.. It is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Kisko P.S. and P.W.-15 was the officer-in-charge of Kisko P.S. Moreover, he could not have foreseen or known the fact that the statement of Uday Anup Panna had been recorded by the Officer-in-Charge of Lohardaga P.S. Thus as per sequence of events the report which was received after P.W.-15 had taken up the investigation can not be treated as F.I.R.. The learned counsel has not brought on record any material to show as to how the suppression of the report of Uday Anup Panna had benefited the prosecution or prejudiced the defence in view of the fact that P.W.-15 has admitted as noticed above that he had recorded the statement of Uday Anup Panna in para-18 of the case diary. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable in law or on facts. 8. The argument advanced by the learned counsel can also be answered from another angle by referring to the decision in the case of Zahir-Uddin Vs. Emperor, AIR, 1947 Privy Council 75 wherein it was held that the evidence of the witness who signed the statement made to the Police and reduced into writing is not hit under Section 162 Cr.P.C or does not itself become inadmissible until and unless the witness, refreshes his memory or makes material use of the statement while testifying or being examined in chief in the court. In the instant case nothing has been brought on record to show that the informant i.e. P.W.-13 had refreshed his memory or made material use of the statement while being examined in court. Thus the contention of the learned counsel, even if accepted on this count also has no legs to stand and the evidence of P.W.-13 can not be termed to be inadmissible thus the argument advanced is answered accordingly. Thus the contention of the learned counsel, even if accepted on this count also has no legs to stand and the evidence of P.W.-13 can not be termed to be inadmissible thus the argument advanced is answered accordingly. In the result it is held that the statement of P.W.-13 has been recorded in terms of Sections 154 and is not hit by the provisions of Sections 162 Cr.P.C., accordingly, the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are not applicable considering the emergent broad features of the instant case. 9. The argument advanced by the learned counsel that nonexamination of injured Uday Anup Panna creates a doubt regarding the credibility of the prosecution case is rather misplaced. In fact, the examination of injured Uday Anup Panna would have bolstered and strengthened the prosecution's case. It is evident that the prosecutor, the Investigating Officer and the trial court were not vigilant on the aspect of non production of an injured witness. However the lapses or irregularity does not in any way, discredit or demolish the prosecution's case. 10. The argument of the learned counsel that the witnesses examined are interested witnesses as they practice a particular religion is rather fallacious as it is the case of the prosecution that all the witnesses including the informant had gathered to attend the 'Chengai-Sabha' (the meeting) and the presence of these witnesses was natural at the place of occurrence as participants in the meeting. Likewise, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that save and except for P.W.-13, none of the witnesses have named the appellant as the assailant, is rather misplaced because in our legal system and per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not the plurality or multiplicity of evidence or witnesses rather it is the quality of evidence. It is settled principle that evidence is to be weighed and not counted by the Court and conviction can be based on the basis of a solitary eye witness if his presence at the place of occurrence is natural and his testimony appears to be reliable and trustworthy and inspires confidence. 11. On examination of the medical evidence, i.e. the postmortem report (Ext-3) P.W.-14, Dr. 11. On examination of the medical evidence, i.e. the postmortem report (Ext-3) P.W.-14, Dr. B.K. Pandey, who conducted the post-mortem, has deposed that he found ante-mortem injuries as follows:- i) Cut injury on left parietal region 4” above the left ear measuring 3”X 2” X bone deep. ii) Fracture of left parietal bone. iii) Bruise on right scapular region 4” X 1”. iv) Bruise on left scapular region 4” X 1”. v) Bruise on left upper arm 3” below shoulder joint 3” X 1”. vi) Abrasion on left lower eyelid 1” X 1/4” X 1/4” In the opinion of the doctor, the time elapsed since death within 24 hrs and cause of death was shock and hemorrhage on account of injury to the brain by sharp and heavy cutting weapon tangi. The injuries mentioned in the inquest report (Ext.-5) is corroborated by the post-mortem report. It is evident that the deceased died a homicidal death. 12. According to the informant P.W.-13 it is stated that one the day of occurrence he along with Mangal Panna (the deceased), P.W.-7 (Vincent Kujur) and uday Anup Panna were sleeping outside and the other P.W's, who had attended the Chengai Sabha were sleeping inside the house. That a mob of 250 arrived raising the slogan and the appellant was armed with a tangi and other co-accused Thakur oraon, Choteya Oraon, Birsu Oraon, Dharu Oraon and Tiwari Oraon were armed with althi. This appellant assaulted Mangal Panna who fell down and when he went to help Mangal panna, the appellant also assaulted him. That when the mob left, then he brought Mangal panna inside the house and Mangal panna died at 4 a.m. That when they were going to the hospital in the morning, they met the officer-in-charge and narrated the occurrence which was written by the officer-in-charge. He has been cross-examined at length but no material contradiction has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.-13. P.W.-9, Baleshar Kujur has also stated that on that day he was at the house of P.W.-13 for attending the Chengai Sabha and on that day Mangal Panna was murdered. In para-9 he has stated that this appellant had assaulted Mangal Panna and when they were taking the deceased to the hospital they had met the police and the police had recorded their statement. That he had also signed on the Panchnama (inquest report). In para-9 he has stated that this appellant had assaulted Mangal Panna and when they were taking the deceased to the hospital they had met the police and the police had recorded their statement. That he had also signed on the Panchnama (inquest report). In cross-examination he has also stated that P.W.-13 had told him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on the head. 13. According to P.W.-7 he along with P.W.-13, Anoop Panna and Mangal panna (the deceased) were sleeping outside the house of P.W.-13 when a mob of 200-250 came shouting 'Jai Sarna' and they were armed with tangi and lathi. Mangal Panna was assaulted on the head. That P.W.-13 had told him the name of the appellant and the other co-accused as the assailants. He has also been cross-examined at length but no material contradiction has been brought on record to disbelieve his statement. Likewise P.W.-8 has stated that he had also come to the house of P.W.-13 to attend the Chengai Sabha. His evidence is consistent to the testimony of P.W.-7. 14. These witnesses are contemporaneous witnesses to the occurrence and they were told by the informant that this appellant along with the other co-accused had assaulted him, P.W.-7 and Mangal Panna and Anup Panna. P.W.-15 is the Investigating Officer and he has been cross-examined at length bu no material contradiction has been brought forth rather he has stated that P.W.-13 had told him that this appellant had assaulted Mangal Panna (the deceased) on the head. That he had sent the injured for medical examination but the investigating officer, the prosecutor, did not bring forth the injury reports of the injured informant and the other injured. However, the testimony of the informant has not been impeached on the point that this appellant was armed with tangi and had assaulted the deceased on the head with the tangi and the medical evidence corroborated the fact of assault by a sharp cutting weapon and the death had occurred due to the said injury. 15. In view of the discussion made above and the evidence on record it is held that prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against appellant, Thakur Oraon for committing the murder of deceased Mangal Panna. 15. In view of the discussion made above and the evidence on record it is held that prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against appellant, Thakur Oraon for committing the murder of deceased Mangal Panna. However the order of conviction recorded by the court below under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC is not proper as other co-accused have been acquitted, accordingly the irregularity is hereby corrected and the conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter stands confirmed. 16. In the result the appeal stands dismissed.