JUDGMENT Hob’le Vipin Sinha, J.—The present appeal is against the order of Sri B.B.L. Hajelay, Sessions Judge, Rampur dated 21st March 1983 in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982; State of U.P. v. Laddan @ Ishaq, convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him with imprisonment for life. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Sri Rahul Misra, holding brief of Sri P.N. Misra, learned Sernior counsel for the appellant and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the state. A perusal of the record shows that the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. is to the effect that Santram, Jhajhan (deceased) and Karan Singh were the real brother who were doing the business of selling of Poolas of Maize (as fodder). As per the prosecution, a day before the incident i.e. 7th July 1982 an altercation took place with regard to the sale and purchase of fodder between Laddan @ Ishaq, the present accused appellant and the deceased. It has further come up that regarding the said altercation which occurred a day before the incident, Prashadi Lal, PW-2 and Jhau Ram, PW-2 were the eye-witnesses and it is said that on the said date i.e. 7th July 1982 the accused applicant after altercation had left the place saying that he would be seeking his revenge; that the very next day at about 05.15 p.m. in the evening Laddan reached the place of occurrence and while the deceased Jhajhan was sitting on the Thela, Laddan in the presence of the first informant i.e. Sant Ram told his brother Jhajhan ^^vkt rqegsa fBdkus yxk nsaxs^^ and saying this, he took out his tamancha from his Penth and fired upon his brother Jhajhan who as a result of injury fell down and died, with regard to which occurrence the FIR had been lodged. 3. In the report it was also given that Jhau Ram, PW-5 and Hari Om PW-6 were the witnesses and in whose presence the occurrence had taken place. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur on 18th July 1982 at 05.45 p.m. describing the place of occurrence to be Rahe Murtuza, opposite Shanker Press, at a distance of 4 furlong from Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur and the time of occurrence was mentioned as 05.15 p.m. 4. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur on 18th July 1982 at 05.45 p.m. describing the place of occurrence to be Rahe Murtuza, opposite Shanker Press, at a distance of 4 furlong from Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur and the time of occurrence was mentioned as 05.15 p.m. 4. The accused appellant was charged as “that you on 8.7.1982 at about 5.15 p.m. at Rahe Murtuza, near Shanker Printing Press, near Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur committed murder of Jhajhan by causing him pistol shot injury which resulted in his death, soon after while being taking to him the District Hospital and you, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and thus cognizance within the Court of Sessions.” 5. The first informant Sant Ram was examined as PW-1, however, subsequently he was declared hostile in view of the fact that there were several contradictions in his testimony inasmuch as at one place he says that he was not present at the spot of occurrence where the incident took place whereas at another place he says that he had reached the place of occurrence and was present when Laddan had arrived and had seen Laddan causing the fatal injury. In his statement Sant Ram, the first informant submitted that he reached with fodder at the spot 15 minutes before the shooting and had seen the entire incident. It may be emphasized that even when being crossed examined by the state counsel, Sant Ram has intimated that he was not present when the shooting took place but he subsequently confirmed the written report Exb. Ka-1 and then further stated that the true position was that he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of shooting and his explanation for earlier denying his presence at the place of occurrence was on account of his apprehension of danger to his life but subsequently on cross-examination by the defence counsel, he again gave the same statement which are in conflict with his written report and it was in these circumstances that he was treated as hostile. The other eye-witness is Hari Om, PW-6, who also was treated hostile by the prosecution but the fact remains that both the aforesaid witnesses i.e. Sant Ram and Hari Om, who were treated as hostile have supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that the occurrence took place on 8th July 1982 at about 05.15 p.m. and also as to the place of occurrence. Hari Om in his statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had clearly stated ^^jkgs eqrZtk ij Collectorate ls vkus okyh lM+d ds frjkgs ij igqWpk rks frjkgs mRrj if'pe vksj [kM+s lra jke us 'kksj epk;k fd cpkvks cpkvks rks eSus ml vksj ns[kk rks ik;k fd frjkgs ds dksus ij gFkBsyk ij cSBs >k>u yky dks vQtqyiqj ds yM~Mu mQZ gLgkd us reaps ls tks og fy;s Fkk xksyh ekj nh xksyh cgqr utnhd ls cka;s xnZu ij ekjh xbZ ftlls >k>u yky dks pksV vkbZA >km yky Hkh 'kkV ij vk x;s Fks vkSj vkn'kZ dkyksuh ds eafnj ds iqtkjh th izHkk dkUr ogkW vk x;s Fks ftUgksus iwjk okD;k ns[kk FkkA^^ However the said Hari Om later on resiled from his aforesaid statement and was treated hostile. But the law remains that such part of the evidence as corroborates the occurrence of the incidence can be read in the evidence. 6. It is further to be seen that Prasadi Lal, who is the real cousin of Sant Ram and who was examined as PW-2 has clearly stated in his statement that Jhajhan, the deceased was engaged in the business of selling of “pulaas” of Maize as fodder. Prasadi Lal, needless to say, is an eye-witness to the occurrence with regard to the motive, which took place on 7th July 1982 i.e. a day prior to the incidence. In his cross-examination Prasadi Lal has clearly stated that he knew Laddan since a very long time as Laddan used to purchase fodder for cattle with regard to which purchase, he visited every day and that he used to purchase fodder from different persons. Prasadi Lal who is the first cousin of Sant Ram has also stated that Laddan is also known as Ishaq. There are no contradictions in the statement of Prasadi Lal. 7. Prasadi Lal who is the first cousin of Sant Ram has also stated that Laddan is also known as Ishaq. There are no contradictions in the statement of Prasadi Lal. 7. The most important witness is Jhau Ram who was examined as PW-5, who is also in the business of selling of fodder (Maize Pulaas), who in his statement has clearly mentioned that the appellant accused is known as Laddan (Ishaq), Jhau Ram in his evidence has clearly reiterated that the occurrence which took place on 7th July 1982 with regard to sale and purchase of pulaas as well as the incident of 8th July 1982. Jhau Ram has also stated that on the date of occurrence at about 05.15 p.m. He was present at the place of occurrence and busy with his own work of selling of “Pulaas” of maize and that he saw Jhajhan sitting on the Thela after selling off his “pulaas”; that he heard Sant Ram shouting and then he saw that Laddan, the accused, after pulling a Tamancha from his “Penth” had shot Jhajhan in the neck on the left side, as a result of which Jhajhan fell down and then Laddan sped away on a cycle. In his cross-examination Jhau Ram has clearly insisted that he was present at the time when the quarrel of “Pulas” took place and was also present on the date of occurrence. Jhau Ram has further stated that he knew the accused Laddan since much before as he used to come to purchase fodder frequently, almost every day. He being a frequent visitor, was well known to Jhau Ram. 8. Dr. Harish Chand Narula, PW-8 was examined and as per the report the following anti mortem injury was found on the person of the deceased: “fire wound entry oval shaped of 4 cm x 3 cm inside chest cavity deep at the left side of neck, laterally 10 cm below the left ear lobule. Margin were lacerated. Scorching and tattooing present. No external mark of injury present all over the body.” 9. Sri R.K. Sharma, the Investigating Officer, was also examined and in his statement he submitted that in the site plan, he has not shown Shanker Printing Press as it was at a big distance. Margin were lacerated. Scorching and tattooing present. No external mark of injury present all over the body.” 9. Sri R.K. Sharma, the Investigating Officer, was also examined and in his statement he submitted that in the site plan, he has not shown Shanker Printing Press as it was at a big distance. He stated that it is wrong to say that when Jhajhan was brought to the police station, he was already dead, that he does not remember that on what conveyance Jhajhan was brought to the Police Station. The Thela on which he found blood stains was found by him at the place of occurrence and not at the police station. He asserted that it is wrong to say that the Thela was at the police station not at the place of occurrence. 10. The trial Court looking to the evidence on record and looking to the contradiction made by Sant Ram in his evidence had declared him hostile alongwith Hari Om PW-6. However, the trial Court has consistently and rightly relied upon the two other witnesses i.e. Prasadi Lal and Jhau Ram. Prasadi Lal is the real cousin of Sant Ram and thus there was no question of his being falsely dragged in the occurrence. He being witness of the incident to the motive of crime, which took place on 7th July, 1982 i.e. a day prior to the alleged incident is undisputed and unimpeachable. While Jhau Ram, PW-5 is a witness of both the incidents i.e. the incident which took place on 7th July, 1982 and also on 8th July, 1982 and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently contended that there has been an improper investigation in the present case; that in fact there are no eye-witness and that as no identification was made, hence the involvement of the accused-appellant is doubtful. 11. However, the fact remains that even if we ignore the evidence of Sant Ram and Hari Om but Jhau Ram and Prasadi Lal have categorically supported the case of the prosecution, neither their presence has been doubted nor any suggestion have been made to them in the Examination-in-Chief or cross-examination. There is not even a whisper from the defence side that there is any enmity between the accused appellant and the witnesses on account of which the appellant may have been falsely implicated. There is not even a whisper from the defence side that there is any enmity between the accused appellant and the witnesses on account of which the appellant may have been falsely implicated. Even the presence of Jhau Ram at the place of occurrence has not been doubted. On the other hand the evidence of Jhau Ram is unimpeachable. Even if he is to be treated as a solitary witness. The Hon’ble Apex Court in his judgement of Sunil Kumar v. The State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367; while relying upon the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, 1957 CriLJ 1000; this Court had gone into this controversy and divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first two categories this Court said that they post little difficulty but in the case of third category of witness corroboration would be required. The relevant portion is quoted as under : “........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. 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...... 12. Vaiduvelu Thevar’s case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad and others v. State of M.P., 1994 CriLJ 1106. 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...... 12. Vaiduvelu Thevar’s case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad and others v. State of M.P., 1994 CriLJ 1106. This Court 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the ‘Evidence Act’). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist for corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighted and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.” 13. The Apex Court has held that even assuming there is a contradiction and if the evidence appears to be clear, cogent and trustworthy and if nothing substantial have been brought on the record to disregard the testimony of other witnesses then merely because there are some aberration the evidence does not get wiped out. In the present case the evidence of PW-5 alone was substantial to fix the guilt on the accused appellant. 14. Needless to say that there cannot be an exact and precise reproduction of evidence in any mathematical manner and what is to be seen is whether the version presented in the Court was substantial and similar to what was stated during the investigation. 15. As far as the question of identification is concerned, almost all the witnesses have categorically stated that the accused was known to them from much prior to the date of occurrence. 15. As far as the question of identification is concerned, almost all the witnesses have categorically stated that the accused was known to them from much prior to the date of occurrence. The Trial Court has rightly concluded that “if at the stage of trial PW’s testimony does not convince the Court about the witnesses knowing the accused from before the occurrence and if the PW’s evidence convinces that they knew the accused from before the occurrence, then the mere failure to hold the identification parade at the instance of the accused will not be fatal to the prosecution case. All the eye-witnesses including the hostile witnesses said that they knew the accused from before the occurrence. Thus in view of the aforesaid material fact merely on account of non holding of the identification parade, will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Hari Nath And others v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 345 , has held that the evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthen the oral testimony in Court which alone is the primary and substantial evidence as to identity. The Court has further held “it is no doubt true that offence of corroboration by test identification may not assume any materiality if either the witnesses had know the accused earlier.” Thus the objection with regard to the identification as raised by the counsel for the appellant is misconceived. 17. It may further be appreciated that the place of occurrence has not been disputed in any serious manner by the appellant. No plea or defence has been taken with regard to any enmity with the witnesses, nothing exist on record which may say that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated either because of some previous enmity or inimical witness. It was a day light incident which took place in the presence of the eye-witness who has supported the case of the prosecution persistently and thus this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the finding and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court. 18. In support of their contention that Jhau Ram is not a reliable witness, a plea has been taken inasmuch as to the effect that Jhau Ram has stated that the body was taken to the police station on the Thela, which Thela was found at the place of occurrence. 18. In support of their contention that Jhau Ram is not a reliable witness, a plea has been taken inasmuch as to the effect that Jhau Ram has stated that the body was taken to the police station on the Thela, which Thela was found at the place of occurrence. However, the fact remains that the investigating officer in his statement has clearly stated that the Thela was found at the place of occurrence. The evidence of Jhau Ram is apparently unimpeachable and fully corroborates the case of the prosecution. The Apex Court has repeatedly taken the view that minor discrepancies or improvements which do not affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The Courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and clearly to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not affect the core of the prosecution case such discrepancies should not be attached undue significance. (Kuriya and others v. State of Raj.) (2012) 10 SCC 433 . 19. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual position and evidence on record and circumstances this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the findings as recorded by the Sessions Judge, Rampur and accordingly the judgement dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 1982 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and imposing sentence of life imprisonment is affirmed and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this judgement be communicated to the Court below.