JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. All the aforesaid four analogous appeals, preferred against one and same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2003 passed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in Session Case no. 82/2000 as well as Sessions Case No. 593 of 2002 have been taken up together for convenience of the court. By the impugned judgment, all the five FIR named accused persons have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C for commission of murder of one Congress Rai. 2. Informant is the wife of the deceased, who has set law into motion by giving her fardbeyan before S.I of police S.K. Mitra, which was recorded on 01-10-1999 at 14.30 hours at place of occurrence ie near the house of accused Digambar. It is alleged that on 01.10.1999 at about 2.00 P.M. when the deceased, who used to work as mason, came back home from his work, his wife(informant) informed him that today i.e. on 01.10.1999, on the eve of Jitiya festival accused persons had caught fish from their joint pond and they distributed the same among themselves but did not give his share to her, on which informant and deceased went to the house of the accused Digambar Rai for demanding their share, upon which, the accused persons became furious and started assaulting the husband of informant having thrashed him on ground, whereupon informant raised alarm to save her husband and she was also assaulted. It is further alleged that one Rajendra Rai gave knife blow in the stomach of deceased as a result of which intestine came out from his stomach, meanwhile, Jitan Rai, Guggu Rai, Digamber Rai dealt sickles blows in the stomach of the deceased due to which deceased died instantaneously. 3. On the aforesaid allegations, formal F.I.R. bearing No 50/99 against the five accused persons under Sections 302, 114 and 34 of the I.P.C. came to be registered. Investigation of which was taken by S.I S.K. Mitra (not produced during trial) which on its completion resulted into filing of charge-sheet against all the five accused persons, who were put to trial and they stand convicted and sentenced as per impugned order. 4. As it appears from the statement of accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that they have denied their allegation in this occurrence and pleaded their false implication. 4. As it appears from the statement of accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that they have denied their allegation in this occurrence and pleaded their false implication. The further defence of accused persons is that santhal people murdered deceased due to previous enmity and threw his dead body at so called place of occurrence and taking its benefit, informant has falsely implicated the accused persons out of enmity. 5. Heard Mr. Sharma, the senior Advocate appearing for all the accused persons and Pankaj Kumar A.P.P for the state. 6. Mr. Sharma the learned counsel for appellant, assailing the impugned judgment submitted that the recording of fardbeyan is itself suspicious as the statement of first informant, the wife of deceased (P.W. -7) on oath has differed from her initial statement particularly when, in her deposition, she stated that she went to thana with her son and Gobardhan and got her fardbeyan registered whereas the fardbeyan is recorded at the place of occurrence itself therefore it appears that the present fardbeyan is not one which was given at the police station and subsequently a coloured version has been brought forward to implicate the accused persons. He submitted that second fardbeyan is therefore hit by section 162 Cr.P.C and can not be made the basis of prosecution case. 7. Learned Senior counsel also submitted that place of occurrence has not been proved as no site plan has been prepared in this case and argued that it is fatal for the prosecution case. 8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that informant happens to be the so called sole eye witness and interested one also, has given two versions of incident hence not reliable and believable to hold. He has finally submitted that all the five accused persons have been falsely implicated by taking benefit of throwing the dead body of deceased by his enemies (santhal people) in front of the house of Digambar Rai after commission of his murder. 9. In the light of aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel submitted that accused persons deserve benefit of doubt therefore prays for allowing of appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is prompt lodging of FIR, which itself rules out any embellishment especially when the informant went to the police station whereupon officer-in-charge himself rushed at P.O and recorded fardbeyan there within just 30 minutes after occurrence. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is prompt lodging of FIR, which itself rules out any embellishment especially when the informant went to the police station whereupon officer-in-charge himself rushed at P.O and recorded fardbeyan there within just 30 minutes after occurrence. No hypothetical presumption can be drawn for lodging of FIR at P.S on mere ground of arrival of informant at police station in above circumstances. However, even if certain minor discrepancy has existed with regard to informing the matter to the police in deposition of P.W-7, that by itself would not demolish the basis of the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the case of prosecution is based on reliable sole eye witness, who was present with deceased at the time of occurrence. The presence of informant with deceased at P.O is highly natural in the facts and circumstances of case as she, at the time of giving information to her husband about not getting his share in fish, fished in common pond by accused persons, must naturally had in the back of her mind about triggering of any quarrel for the same with accused persons and it was substantial reason for informant to accompany her husband there. He has also submitted that place of occurrence has been proved by not only informant but by the testimony of other witnesses as well as documentary evidence also, hence non-making of site plan by I.O is not fatal for prosecution case. Finally, learned A.P.P prays for upholding the conviction of all accused persons submitting that P.W-7 is wholly reliable. 11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses, namely:- PW-1 Manik Data-He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was present at his house. The son of deceased, who was going to police station, informed him about the occurrence. He saw the dead body lying in front of house of accused Digambar Rai. He has further stated that police had recovered two/three sickles from the house of Digamber and one knife from the house of Rajan Rai. He has proved his statement made on seizure list with his signature to the effect that 'blood stained sickle was recovered in front of him' from the possession of Digambar Rai, which has been marked as exhibit-1. He has proved his statement made on seizure list with his signature to the effect that 'blood stained sickle was recovered in front of him' from the possession of Digambar Rai, which has been marked as exhibit-1. PW-2 Mathur Rai-(Hearsay witness to occurrence) has proved his signature made on seizure list prepared for recovery of one blood stained sickle from the house of accused Gubu Rai (Ext-1/1), his signature made on seizure list prepared for recovery of one blood stained sickle from the house of accused Rajan Rai (Ext-1/2) and his signature made on inquest report (Ext-1/3). PW-3 Dijo Pad Mal-According to him he went to see dead body of deceased at 3.30 P.M. He has proved his signature made on seizure list prepared for recovery of one sickle from the house of accused Digambar Rai as exhibit 1 /4. PW-4 Gobardhan Mal has stated that he had seen dead body of deceased and proved his signature made on inquest report as Ext-1/5. PW-5 Sukhdev Rai has turned hostile. PW-6 Dr. Sita Ram Sah is medical expert, who conducted autopsy over the dead body. He has proved P.M.Report as Ext-2. PW-7 Hera Mani Devi is informant cum sole eye witness. PW-8 Dilip Rai, has turned hostile but stated that he had seen the dead body of deceased and proved his signature made on inquest report as 1/6. PW-9 Bablu Nandi-(Hearsay witness) has proved his signature made on two seizure lists prepared for recovery of sickle from the house of Guggu Rai (exhibit1/7) as well as recovery of sickle from the house of Rajan Rai (exhibit1/8). He has stated that officer in charge of police station had asked before him as well other 5/6 his co-villagers to accompany him to the house of accused Shayam Lal Rai, who is father of accused Rajan and Gubu so they went to the door of shyamlal. During cross examination, officer in charge had entered in house of Shyamlal and brought two clean sickles from their house and he himself smeared both sickles with the blood of dead body and thereafter he prepared seizure list. PW-10 Basant Kr. Malik is formal witness has proved Fardbeyan, endorsement on fardbeyan, formal FIR, carbon copy of Inquest report and four seizure lists, which have been marked as Ext. 3 Ext. 3/1, Ext. 4, Ext-5 Ext. 6, 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 respectively. 12. P.W.6 is Dr. PW-10 Basant Kr. Malik is formal witness has proved Fardbeyan, endorsement on fardbeyan, formal FIR, carbon copy of Inquest report and four seizure lists, which have been marked as Ext. 3 Ext. 3/1, Ext. 4, Ext-5 Ext. 6, 6/1, 6/2 and 6/3 respectively. 12. P.W.6 is Dr. Sita Ram Sah, who conducted autopsy over the dead body has stated that he had found the following antimortem injuries (i) Incised wound 1” x1” x deep to abdomen over right side of abdomen. (ii) Incised wound 2” x 1” x abdominal deep in middle of abdomen. (iii) Incised wound over left side of abdomen 1” x ½” x deep to abdomen. (iv) On dissection of abdomen –liver, spleen and large and small intestine found ruptured and huge collection of blood found inside abdominal cavity. (v) Incised wound 1” x ½” x muscles deep over right scrotum-on dissection right testis found ruptured and hematoma present. He has opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned above and that all injuries are sufficient to cause death. He has also suggested that weapons used were sharp cutting weapons for all injuries and that weapon may be chhura [knife] and other sharp cutting weapon. 13. On perusal of the testimony of sole eye witness cum informant coupled with the observation of all witnesses, who had seen the dead body after occurrence and findings of P.M report, we are of the view that the death of deceased was homicidal. 14. So for as the complicity of accused persons are concerned, prosecution case is based on the testimony of so called solitary eye witness P.W.7 (informant) of the case. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she 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 honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, 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. [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 )] The said case laws may be read in the advantage in this context. 16. P.W.7, the sole eye witness to occurrence has stated on oath that on the day of occurrence at about 1.45 P.M, her husband came at house having done the work of mason and asked whether fish were given by her bhaisur Digambar or not? whereupon she replied in negative thereafter her husband went at the house of Digambar Rai and asked him the reason for not giving his share of fish, who became furious and ordered to kill him thereupon Jitan Rai and Guggu Rai caught hold him. Meanwhile, Rajan gave a fist blow on the mouth of her husband. When she went to rescue her husband, Guggu Rai gave a fist blow on her head as a result of which she fell down thereafter Rajan assaulted her with fist blows. Jitan kicked her husband on his chest resultantly he fell down. In the mean time Jitan caught his shoulder and Guggu caught his legs thereafter Rajan dealt five knife blows in the stomach of her husband and before leaving place Rajan again dealt knife blow on the mouth of her husband. Digambar assaulted with the back portion of Tanga. She has further stated that during the occurrence Shyamlal was instigating to accused persons to kill her husband from his house. Digambar assaulted with the back portion of Tanga. She has further stated that during the occurrence Shyamlal was instigating to accused persons to kill her husband from his house. She has further added that Guggu Rai had kachia (sickle) in his hand but he did not use it. She has also disclosed that intestine from the stomach of her husband had come out due to cut injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries. During cross examination learned counsel for defence has not cross-examined her on specific overt act of any accused persons. Further nothing has been elicited on the genesis of occurrence and motive attributed behind this crime ie; dispute arisen for not giving the share of deceased in fish, fished from common tank by accused persons. It is well settled principle of law that a witness should be cross-examined on each and every point and failure to cross-examine him/her on a particular point would entail a presumption that party not cross-examining the witness had accepted his/her evidence. 17. Admitted proof of the genesis of occurrence and motive attributed behind this crime also strengthened the case of prosecution. Place of occurrence (proved by witnesses) situates in front of the house of accused Digambar Singh, also added a strong circumstance pointing toward guilt of accused persons, especially in the backdrop of the evidence deposed by the eye witness. 18. From the evidence of P.W.9 (mentioned in para 10 of this judgment) the role of I.O is apparent, who manipulated and created the evidence by showing recovery of blood stained sickles from the possession of Rajan, who had used knife as weapon of assault in this murder. Hence, we are of the considered view that the apparent role of I.O in this case to favour the accused can never cause fundamental dent to the prosecution case. Supreme court in the case of Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 3 SCC 654 ], held, “in the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. Supreme court in the case of Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 3 SCC 654 ], held, “in the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly conducted.” State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in [2000 SCC (Crl.) 61] “It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre-minence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigation officers. Criminal Justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case.” The said case laws may be read in the advantage in this context. 19. We also found that there be difference between testimony of eye witness and medical evidence regarding number of injuries received by deceased in stomach but we feel that on this ground the evidence of trustworthy eye witness can not be thrown away for two reasons (i) the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that the reliable ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence and (ii) after all informant being rustic lady of village deserves concession for such type of discrepancies. 20. 20. Regard being had the above discussed evidence deposed by solitary eye witness, we are of the view that her evidence showing the complicity of accused persons namely Digambar Rai, Rajendra Rai @ Rajan, Jitan Rai and Guggu Rai, who in the furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased as well as the complicity of accused Syamlal, who abetted to the accused persons for this murder inspires confidence as her testimony has a ring of truth. 21. Considering the rival submission of both parties in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, we found the substantial force in the contention of learned A.P.P. 22. After rescanning the prosecution case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has, no doubt, been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt vis-a-vis complicity of accused namely Digambar Rai, Rajendra Rai @ Rajan, Jitan Rai and Guggu Rai, in causing the murder of the deceased in furtherance of common intention punishable u/s 302 /34 IPC as well as the complicity of accused Shyamlal Rai for abetting the murder of deceased punishable u/s 302/114 IPC. 23. Considering the cumulative effect of circumstances, which have been weighed with learned lower court to order conviction in this case, it can not be said that the view taken by learned lower court suffers from any infirmity legal or factual for passing the order of conviction. In the light of above findings, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction as well as sentence passed by learned lower court as such the judgment of conviction as well as sentence slapped against accused persons is hereby confirmed. All the four Appeals on hand stand dismissed accordingly.