Judgment Virender Singh, J. Appellant Ghasia Munda (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'accused') aged 69/70 years, after having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 19.08.2000 of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi), has preferred the instant appeal. His co-accused Radha Govind Munda could not be nabbed by the police, as such, declared absconder and his case was separated. 2. At the very outset, we have been informed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate, appearing as Amicus Curiae for the accused, that the accused has already undergone more than 16 years of his substantive sentence but he is not aware as to whether he has been released from the jail or not as at one stage the case of the accused was put up before State Sentence Review Board. Even learned A.P.P. is also not aware of the said fact as no information has been supplied to him from the concerned quarter till date. 3. Be that as it may, the instant appeal which already stands admitted, has to be decided on merits. 4. Deceased in this case is one Mugru Swansi. The first informant is his real brother namely, Sanika Swansi who was given the information of the present occurrence by one Dadhi Munda (P.W.-7). It is alleged in the first information report that on 31.10.1989 at about 7.30 pm when P.W.-7 -Dadhi Munda was returning from Kota Bazar along with Mugru Swansi, he saw Radha Govind Munda armed with sword (since absconder) and the accused with Farsa. Both were standing in the way and when the deceased reached there, the accused, who was armed with Farsa, gave Farsa blow on the ear-pit of the deceased, consequently he fell down. Other accused is also shown to have given injuries on the person of the deceased. 5. On the aforesaid information, the police swung into action, reached the spot and completed all the formalities at the spot. Statement of certain witnesses were also recorded during the investigation. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused and was put to trial. 6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined many witnesses but we do not feel the necessity of entering into details with regard to all the witnesses as they appear to be the witnesses of hearsay evidence. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused and was put to trial. 6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined many witnesses but we do not feel the necessity of entering into details with regard to all the witnesses as they appear to be the witnesses of hearsay evidence. The prosecution case requires to be appreciated on the statement of solitary eye witness namely Dadhi Munda (P.W.-7) who is categoric in stating that the accused who was armed with Farsa had caused injuries on the person of the deceased. Medical evidence also supports the evidence of P.W.-7 Dadhi Munda. 7. We do not find any reason which would make the evidence of this solitary eye witness unworthy of credence. It is well settled that the conviction can be based on the statement of a solitary eye witness provided it is worth acceptance. We, after rescanning his evidence very minutely, are of the considered view that it does not suffer from any flaw so as to doubt P.W.-7 Dadhi Munda as a untrue witness to the occurrence. 8. We are of the considered view that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the accused, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, deserves to be affirmed. Ordered accordingly. 9. The net result is that the appeal on hand merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 10. Since the accused is being represented by Amicus Curiae, Registry is directed to inform the accused of the outcome of the instant appeal through the Jail Superintendent, provided he is still confined in the jail and serving his substantive sentence. Appeal dismissed.