Judgment : Per Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. This appeal is directed against acquittal of respondent-Khurshid Ahmed of offences under Sections 302/341 of RPC recorded by learned Principal Sessions Judge Bhaderwah in Sessions File No. 12/Sessions decided on 12.03.2012. The impugned judgment of acquittal is assailed on the ground that same has been passed without appreciating the direct and circumstantial evidence brought on record by prosecution during trial. The impugned judgment is termed as being perverse resulting in miscarriage of justice, therefore, warranting interference by this Court in appeal. 2. Facts germane to putting respondent on trial on charge of murder of deceased Arshad Sajjad are required to be noticed. It was on 18.05.2006 that Arshad Sajjad, in an injured condition, accompanied by his father laid information at Police Station Bhaderwah alleging that while returning from his shop at Passari Adda at 8 pm the respondent (herein after referred to as “accused”) accosted him on the way near Masjid and assaulted him with a rod on his head causing injuries. Case under FIR No. 53/2006 came to be registered under Section 341/323 of RPC. The injured was referred to hospital. As the condition of injured became serious, offence under Section 307 of RPC was added. The injured was shifted to Government Medical College Jammu as his condition deteriorated. However, he succumbed to injuries while under treatment in GMC Hospital Jammu. The offence under Section 307 of RPC was altered in offence under Section 302 of RPC. During the course of investigation dead body of deceased Arshad Sajjad was subjected to post mortem examination. Clothes worn by the deceased along with his dead body came to be seized. Blood stained soil was seized and site plan of occurrence was drawn up. Accused was arrested and a rod was recovered at his instance. Site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence was drawn up. Opinion was obtained from the Medical Expert regarding the weapon of offence. The seized articles were produced before the Magistrate who resealed the same and forwarded the same to FSL Jammu for chemical examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The investigation reveals that there was some dispute relating to transaction of money between the deceased and the accused. Opinion was obtained from the Medical Expert regarding the weapon of offence. The seized articles were produced before the Magistrate who resealed the same and forwarded the same to FSL Jammu for chemical examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The investigation reveals that there was some dispute relating to transaction of money between the deceased and the accused. One Gias-ud din had purchased GI-Sheets from the shop of one Arshad Hussain Beig and accused had undertaken to pay for the same but there was delay in making the payment. It further revealed that on the date of alleged occurrence the accused had visited the shop of deceased at Passari Adda and the deceased had put up the demand of money from the accused which the latter resented and threatened the deceased. At 8 pm, the deceased was proceedings towards his home after closing his shop. His father Sajjad Ahmed Beig was accompanying him. The deceased was accosted by the accused on reaching near Passri Masjid and the accused assaulted him with an iron rod hitting him on his head in consequence whereof the deceased suffered injuries which ultimately proved fatal. The investigation was concluded and it culminated in filing of charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sections 302/341 of RPC. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to charges framed under Sections 302/341 of RPC against him. Prosecution, accordingly, made a bid to bring home guilt of the accused by adducing evidence at the trial. Reference to evidence shall be made for reappraisal thereof while dealing with the modes of proof relied upon by prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-State submits that the trial court has overlooked and improperly rejected the testimony of Pw-Sajjad Ahmed Bhat who happened to be the father of deceased and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the sole eye-witness which in itself was sufficient to prove the guilt of accused. Besides, it is argued, the circumstances corroborated by Medical Report of sufficient proof of involvement of accused. It is submitted that the direct and the circumstantial evidence corroborated by the Expert evidence establishes the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt. 5. Besides, it is argued, the circumstances corroborated by Medical Report of sufficient proof of involvement of accused. It is submitted that the direct and the circumstantial evidence corroborated by the Expert evidence establishes the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for accused would argue that the impugned judgment is a reasoned one and the findings recorded on appreciation of evidence are perfectly justified. He would further argue that the testimony of Sajjad Ahmed Bhat is not trustworthy and the evidence brought on record by prosecution does not inspire confidence. He would further argue that the death of deceased has occurred on account of negligence on the part of Doctors which fairly contributed in the death of deceased. He would further argue that the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are closely related to deceased and fall in the category of interested witnesses. Therefore, reliance could not be placed on their testimonies. It is lastly argued that in absence of strong motive on the part of accused to eliminate the deceased, the sole eye witness and other evidence on record could not be attached any credit. 6. We have heard the learned counsel at length and waded through the record meticulously. 7. Prosecution relied upon the following three modes of proof to attribute authorship of crime to accused:- A) Direct Evidence; B) Disclosure Statement of accused followed by recovery of weapon of offence; C) Expert Evidence. 8. A) Direct Evidence Admittedly, Sajjad Hussain Bhat is the solitary eye witness of alleged occurrence. He is the father of deceased. It is in his deposition of this witness that the deceased was running a hardware shop at Passari Adda and on 18.05.2006 both of them were in the shop. It was at about 5.30 pm that the accused arrived there. The deceased put up the demand of money as the accused had stood as guarantor for payment in respect of the tin-sheets purchased by Gias-u-din Malik. As per his version the accused got infuriated, caught hold of deceased and started beating him. The witness claimed to have raised an alarm which attracted Farid Ahmed, Amjad Hanif and Adil Hussain on spot. The timely intervention by the trio saved the life of deceased. The witness deposed that while retreating the accused threatened to take revenge. As per his version the accused got infuriated, caught hold of deceased and started beating him. The witness claimed to have raised an alarm which attracted Farid Ahmed, Amjad Hanif and Adil Hussain on spot. The timely intervention by the trio saved the life of deceased. The witness deposed that while retreating the accused threatened to take revenge. He further deposed that at about 8 pm the shop was closed and both of them left for their home. However, when they reached near Passri Temple, the accused stopped them and started abusing the deceased. He deposed that the accused was armed with an iron rod. When the father and the son proceeded forward, the accused hit the deceased on his head causing strike with a rod. The deceased fell down. He was bleeding. Zakir Hussain, Mohd. Aslam Khan and Adil Hussain Bhat lifted him and removed him to the clinic of Ali Mohd. but Ali Mohd. told them to go to Police Station as it was a Police case. Adil and another boy removed the deceased to Police Station on a motor cycle. The witness followed on foot. They lodged verbal report which was recorded by Police and duly signed by them. The witness identified signatures of deceased besides his own signatures on FIR marked ExPW-SH. He further deposed that the Police removed the deceased to hospital where SHO recorded his statement. However, subsequently the condition of Arshad Sajjad started deteriorating. He vomited and went in comma. He was removed to GMC Jammu in an Ambulance but he breathed his last when they had reached Nagrota. The Ambulance returned to Bhaderwah where body of deceased was subjected to post mortem examination. The deceased was his eldest son aged 28 years. The witness has identified the seized iron rod. He has also testified to contents of supurdnama, seizure memo of register and supurdnama of register respectively marked ExPW-SH/1 SH/2 and SH/3 respectively. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that the deceased had passed Part-I examination. He was a thorough gentleman and never quarreled with anybody. The witness stated that he had set up the hardware shop after his retirement in 2001. The deceased worked with him since then. The witness identified page no.64 of the khata register as copy of the original which reflected Villayat Goni as guarantor for Gias ‘ud’ din. He was a thorough gentleman and never quarreled with anybody. The witness stated that he had set up the hardware shop after his retirement in 2001. The deceased worked with him since then. The witness identified page no.64 of the khata register as copy of the original which reflected Villayat Goni as guarantor for Gias ‘ud’ din. He admitted that the name of accused was not reflected in the khata. The entry was in the handwriting of deceased. He also admitted that the amount lying outstanding against Gias-ud-din had been paid to him by Villayat Goni after the occurrence in March, 2007. He had never made a demand before Villayat Goni who had left Bhaderwah after standing as guarantor for Gias-ud-din. Villayat Goni had made payment of Rs.8600/- on behalf of Gias-ud-din. On 24.04.2006, wife of Gias-ud-din paid him Rs.5000/- and in regard to the balance amount, she told the witness that the same would be paid by the accused as she had given her jewelry to the accused. This happened in the presence of deceased. The witness claimed that he had put up the demand for outstanding amount before the accused. His statement was recorded by Police on 20.05.2006. Confronted with the statement the witness admitted that he had not told the Police about payment of Rs.5,000/- made by wife of Gias-ud-din and that she had told him that since she had mortgaged her jewelry with the accused, the accused would make the balance payment. He had also not told the Police that Villayat Goni had undertaken to make the payment on behalf of Gias-ud-din. As the accused visited his shop, he demanded the money lying outstanding against Gias-ud-din. The accused got enraged and caught hold of the deceased. The witness claimed that he did not intervene as the accused is a desperate character and he would not have even spared the witness. The accused aged around 40 years lived in his neighbourhood. The witness did not know whether any other criminal case was pending against the accused. The accused had caught hold of the deceased by neck and landed blows upon him. Amjad Haneef, Adil Hussain and Farid Iqbal intervened and removed the accused. Shop of Ghulam Nabi Thoker located between the temple and mosque was closed at that time. The witness did not know whether any other criminal case was pending against the accused. The accused had caught hold of the deceased by neck and landed blows upon him. Amjad Haneef, Adil Hussain and Farid Iqbal intervened and removed the accused. Shop of Ghulam Nabi Thoker located between the temple and mosque was closed at that time. The accused was coming from the side of mosque while the witness and deceased were proceeding towards their home when the accused intercepted the deceased. The accused abused them and threatened to eliminate. However, the witness and the deceased did not retaliate. The accused moved forward but struck the deceased with an iron rod from backside. It was a narrow lane about 5 feet wide. The witness further stated that he was walking ahead of the deceased and the deceased was following him at a distance of about 1 meter. The witness claimed to have turned back on hearing the cries of deceased when the accused had hit him on the head with an iron rod. Meanwhile, the accused ran away. The witness refuted the suggestion that he had assaulted the accused with a piece of wood when the later was going to market for getting medicines for his wife and in the same altercation, the deceased also sustained an injury on his head. Nobody from the Mohalla was present there at that time though it is probable that some passerby may have witnessed the occurrence. The deceased was hit on right side of the head. Blood spilled on spot. Meanwhile, Zakir and Aslam arrived there. They rendered help in removing the deceased to the house of Ali Mohammad. The witness refuted the suggestion that the earlier part of occurrence was a quarrel between him and Abdul Qayoom’ Head Constable, who was brother in law of Gias-ud-din and it had taken place in front of shop of one Farooq Ahmed. A close scrutiny of the testimony of this witness reveals that the genesis of crime related to some amount lying outstanding against one Gias-ud-din who had purchased GI-sheets from the hardware shop run by the deceased with the help of witness. The testimony of this witness further reveals that one Villayat Goni had stood as guarantor for the amount lying outstanding against Gias-ud-din. The testimony of this witness further reveals that one Villayat Goni had stood as guarantor for the amount lying outstanding against Gias-ud-din. Oral evidence of this witness is corroborated by entries in Page No.64 of the Khata Register exhibited as ExPW SH-III at the trial. It further appears from testimony of these witnesses that though the accused never stood as guarantor for Gias-ud-din, the wife of Gias-ud-din had paid Rs.5,000/- to the witness and told the witness that the balance amount would be paid by the accused with whom she had mortgaged her jewelry items. The witness claimed to have put up demand for balance amount before accused several times. His testimony further establishes that it was around 10 months after the occurrence that Villayat Goni paid balance amount of Rs.8,600/- to witness on behalf of Gias-ud-din. The genesis of crime is vividly traceable to the demand for outstanding money against Gias-ud-din in respect whereof the witness and the deceased used to make demands from the accused with whom, the wife of Gias-ud-din had mortgaged her jewelry items. In so far as the earlier part of occurrence during the day in the shop of deceased is concerned, the witness claimed that the same was witnessed by Fareed Iqbal, Amjad Haneef and Abid Hussain. PW-Fareed Iqbal Bhat has corroborated the oral account of PW-Sajjad Hussain by deposing that on the day of occurrence while he was proceeding towards his home, he heard a noise emanating from the hardware shop of deceased. Abid, Hafeez and another boy were with him. They found the accused quarrelling with the deceased and his father. The quarrel related to some monetary transaction. The witness claimed to have intervened. He has stated in emphatic terms that the accused had threatened to take revenge. The witness has been cross-examined which reveals that he and his companions were friends. Around 15/20 people had assembled there. There was exchange of abuses between the deceased and the accused. Pw-Abid Hussain has also deposed in regard to 1st part of occurrence. He also claimed that he had intervened and prevented the quarrel to escalate into a graver crime. However, the accused had threatened the deceased of serious consequences while leaving the place. From cross-examination of this witness, it appears that the witness was related to the deceased as his cousin besides he was also a friend of the deceased. He also claimed that he had intervened and prevented the quarrel to escalate into a graver crime. However, the accused had threatened the deceased of serious consequences while leaving the place. From cross-examination of this witness, it appears that the witness was related to the deceased as his cousin besides he was also a friend of the deceased. This witness also claims to have learnt about the later part of occurrence in which deceased was hit by the accused. He stated that when he emerged from the mosque after offering prayers in the evening, he learnt that the deceased was hit by the accused and he has been removed to the clinic of Ali Mohammad. He went there and inquired from the deceased who told him that while he was returning to his home, the accused had hit him on hand with an iron rod. The witness further stated that on the advice of Ali Mohammad, the witness was removed to Police Station on the Motor of Adil with the help of one Raju where the deceased made a statement before Police implicating the accused. PW-Amjad Haneef also deposed about the 1st Part of occurrence that occurred in the shop of deceased. He claimed to have been attracted to the shop of deceased while returning from the play ground of Higher Secondary School. He found the accused and the deceased quarreling. He claims to have intervened. It is in his testimony that while leaving the place, the accused threatened the deceased. He also claims to have noticed bruises on the throat of deceased. The witness has been cross examined and he stated that many people had intervened between the deceased and the accused but it was in his presence that the two were separated from each other. He has nominated PW-Sajjad Bhat, Fareed Lone and Abid as the witnesses present on spot. Testimonies of PWs-Fareed Iqbal Bhat, Abid Hussain and Amjad Haneef corroborate the oral account of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat in all material particulars relating to the first part of occurrence which occurred in the shop of deceased during day time. The testimony of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat who accompanied the deceased, while in injured state, in the first instance to the clinic of Ali Mohammad and then to Police Station, received further corroboration from FIR marked ExPW-SH of which he is the co-author. The testimony of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat who accompanied the deceased, while in injured state, in the first instance to the clinic of Ali Mohammad and then to Police Station, received further corroboration from FIR marked ExPW-SH of which he is the co-author. He has identified signatures of deceased besides those of himself on the FIR and proved its contents. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Bhaderwah on verbal information given by the deceased and PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat on 18.05.2006 at 8.45 PM. The lodging of FIR is further proved by the testimony of the then SHO Nissar Ahmed who identified his signatures on the FIR. According to FIR, the occurrence took place at 8.30 PM and the report was lodged within fifteen minutes thereafter when the deceased, while in an injured state appeared at the Police Station while being accompanied by his father Sajjad Hussain Bhat and laid verbal information alleging therein that while at about 8 PM, he was proceedings towards his house after closing his shop near Yasri Masjid, accused Khurseed Ahmed Beig had assaulted him with an iron rod on his head and his father had rescued him. FIR was recorded on the basis of the verbal information given by the deceased. It appears that initially a case was registered under Section 341/323 RPC as it appeared to be a case of simple injury at that time. It is well settled that First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the Police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging the report may result in creeping in of the introduction of colored version, exaggerated account or concocted story. In the instant case, FIR has been lodged by the deceased himself within less than one hour of the occurrence when the deceased was in an injured state having sustained an injury on his head allegedly caused by a strike given by the accused with an iron rod. In the instant case, FIR has been lodged by the deceased himself within less than one hour of the occurrence when the deceased was in an injured state having sustained an injury on his head allegedly caused by a strike given by the accused with an iron rod. The accused was nominated in the FIR and the circumstances leading to the causing of the injury were spelt out. Therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the testimony of Sajjad Hussain Bhat, who appears to be the solitary witness of later part of the occurrence in which the deceased was hit by accused with an iron rod, is duly corroborated by the testimonies of PWs-Fareed Iqbal Bhat, Abid Hussain and Amjad Haneef besides prompt lodging of the FIR incorporating the name of accused and the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the injury on his head. Now coming to the 2nd part of the occurrence be it seen that the same is said to have occurred on the very day when the first part of occurrence occurred in the shop of deceased. It has been noticed in the testimony of PW- Sajjad Hussain Bhat that he alongwith deceased were returning to their home after closing their shop when the accused accosted them near yasri Mandir and started abusing the deceased. According to his account, the deceased was holding an iron rod in his hand and he assaulted the deceased from backside while the witness was walking ahead of deceased. The witness claimed that Zakir Hussain, Mohd. Aslam Khan and Adil Hussain arrived there when the deceased, after sustaining the strike of iron rod on his head fell down and started bleeding. The deceased was removed to the clinic of Ali Mohammad who advised them to report at the Police Station. Zakir Hussain, Mohd. Aslam Khan and Adil Hussain have neither been cited as prosecution witnesses nor examined at the trial. However, prosecution case cannot be thrown out and evidence of reliable witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of non-examination of these witnesses which may be attributable to any lapse or flaw in investigation. It is well settled that any flaw or illegality in investigation would not justify discarding of admissible and reliable evidence. However, prosecution case cannot be thrown out and evidence of reliable witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of non-examination of these witnesses which may be attributable to any lapse or flaw in investigation. It is well settled that any flaw or illegality in investigation would not justify discarding of admissible and reliable evidence. The testimony of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat is corroborated by PWs-Ishtiyaq Ahmed and Ali Mohammad in regard to circumstances that immediately followed sustaining of injury by deceased in consequence of being hit by accused on his head with an iron rod. PW-Ishtiyaq Ahmed deposed that while he was in his STD shop in Yasri Adda, he heard a noise emanating from the clinic of Ali Mohammad. He rushed there and found the deceased having sustained a head injury. On inquiry, the deceased told him that the accused had hit him with a rod. According to his deposition, Ali Mohammad advised that the deceased be taken to Police Station as it was a Police case. The deceased was removed to Police Station on a motor cycle and the witness sat behind the deceased providing support to him. This witness too has corroborated the facts relating to lodging of FIR at the Police Station. PW-Ali Mohammad deposed that he was running a small clinic at Bus Stand Yasri. The deceased was brought to his clinic in an injured condition but advised the deceased to be taken to Police Station. Pws-Ishtiyaq Ahmed and Ali Mohammad have fully corroborated the version of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat on the aspect of the deceased having been removed to the clinic of Ali Mohammad in an injured state and from there being removed to Police Station on the advice of PW- Ali Mohammad. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the evidence brought on record by prosecution establishes beyond doubt the facts relating to first part of occurrence which occurred in the shop of deceased in day time and the circumstances attending upon landing of deceased in company of his father in the clinic of PW-Ali Mohammad with deceased having sustained an injury on his head and he being removed to Police Station on the advice of Pw-Ali Mohammad. On the vital aspect of the causing of strike by accused with an iron rod on the head of deceased, we have the evidence of solitary eye witness Sajjad Hussain Bhat. On the vital aspect of the causing of strike by accused with an iron rod on the head of deceased, we have the evidence of solitary eye witness Sajjad Hussain Bhat. What value and credit can be attached to his testimony has to be assessed in the light of well settled law. Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. The criminal jurisprudence of India does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither legislative requirement as embodied in Section 134 of the Evidence Act nor legal position settled by a catena of rulings of the Hon ble Apex Court mandate that any particular number of witnesses should be examined for recording conviction of an accused. India legal system lays emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence. No significance is attached to quantity, plurality or multiplicity of witnesses. Plurality of witnesses is not required to establish culpability of an accused. Proof of guilt rests upon the quality of evidence, appreciation whereof is a delicate task undertaken by a trained judicial mind. The credibility of the witness depends upon various factors. Whether a witness is related or interested, partisan or independent, chance or natural depends upon distinct features of each case. What value should be attached to the testimony of a witness also depends upon a variety of factors including his power of observation, maturity, capacity to comprehend a situation, fairness, objective approach and finally his ability to recall and recollect the facts and reproduce the same according to sequence of events. There are many events which occur at public places. Many offences are committed in full public view while many criminal acts are executed under cover of darkness and secrecy. Some occurrences offer many people opportunity to view it while in regard to some occurrences people have seldom the opportunity to have direct knowledge of the same. Multiple eye-witnesses may render it easier to bring the culprit to book while cases lacking direct evidence and dependent upon proof of circumstances may witness the perpetrator of crime escaping the clutches of law. It is in the case of a solitary eye witness that the Courts apply Rule of caution in appreciating the testimony of such witness to ascertain whether the same is wholly reliable. The testimony of a solitary eye witness is required to be subjected to fine tooth combing. It is in the case of a solitary eye witness that the Courts apply Rule of caution in appreciating the testimony of such witness to ascertain whether the same is wholly reliable. The testimony of a solitary eye witness is required to be subjected to fine tooth combing. The principle of common law “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” not being applied in India, the Courts have the onerous responsibility of separating grain from the chaff and accept the testimony of a witness shown to be not truthful in part to the extent same is corroborated and discard the rest. It is well settled that where the prosecution case rests on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the same must be wholly reliable. This statement of law has been further elaborated in judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 1735 . It was laid down that where the prosecution rests on sole testimony of an eye witness, same should be wholly reliable. However, it does not mean that each and every type of infirmity or minor discrepancy would render the evidence of such witness unreliable. The credibility of the witness should be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be above board, unblemished and beyond suspicion. The testimony of solitary eye witness must impress the Court as being natural, fully truthful and convincing. Such testimony must inspire confidence of such a degree that the Court finds no hesitation in recording the conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. This exposition of law was made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Thimoepa Chandappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323 . In Ria Singh and ors. Vs. Such testimony must inspire confidence of such a degree that the Court finds no hesitation in recording the conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. This exposition of law was made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Thimoepa Chandappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 11 SCC 323 . In Ria Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 328 the Hon’ble Apex Court held:- “Evidence of an eye witness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence.” The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated this legal position in State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash reported in 2007 (12) SCC 381 as follows:- “The deposition of a solitary witness who is also related to the deceased can be relied on without corroboration, if the evidence is cogent and not shaken by the defence and same can be the basis for conviction of the accused.” The Hon’ble Apex Court again reiterated the same legal position in Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009(1) Supreme 224 as under: “Conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary witness provided his presence at the place of occurrence was natural and his testimony should be strong, reliable and free from any blemish. “The law evolved on the subject of evaluation of testimony of solitary eye witness can be traced to the basic authority and oftly quoted decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vandivalu Therous vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 . It was laid down that:- “Court can and may convict placing reliance 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.” Same has been followed in Puran Yadav vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (8) Supreme 51 . It follows that a Court can totally rely upon a solitary witness to record conviction of an accused provided the witness is reliable. The sum and substance of the judicial precedents on the subject is loud and clear. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction, presence of such witness on the scene of offence must be natural and probable. The sum and substance of the judicial precedents on the subject is loud and clear. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a solitary eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction, presence of such witness on the scene of offence must be natural and probable. Further testimony of such witness should be strong, reliable and free from any blemish. PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat is the father of deceased. He is an eye witness to the entire episode beginning the altercation that took place in his shop between the accused and the deceased as also the vital aspect of the occurrence when he was accompanying the deceased while returning to their home after closing the shop when the accused accosted them and hit the deceased on his head with an iron rod. The testimony of this witness is not shown to be tainted. Merely because the witness happens to be the father of deceased is no ground to discard his testimony as being the deposition of a related witness who is interested in falsely implicating the accused by hook or by crook. The role attributed to this witness is all pervading inasmuch as he was present all through the series of events which culminated in sustaining of fatal injury by the deceased. No motive is attributed to this witness to pursue an agenda of implicating the accused in a false case. The witness, being father of the deceased would necessarily be interested in bringing the real culprit to book. It cannot be imagined that the father of deceased would implicate an innocent person and spare the real perpetrator of crime, more particularly, one who happens to have committed murder of his son. On close and critical analysis of the testimony of this witness, we find that the witness has not suppressed any material fact and his credit has not been impeached in the least. He has given a detailed and graphic account of the events that led to the sustaining of head injury by the deceased in consequence of a strike being caused by an iron rod held by the accused. The motive behind the crime too has been succinctly described. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence and is found capable of implicit faith being reposed therein. The motive behind the crime too has been succinctly described. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence and is found capable of implicit faith being reposed therein. That apart, the testimony of this witness receives ample corroboration from prompt lodging of FIR of which he is the co-author, oral evidence of Fareed Iqbal Bhat, Abid Hussain, Amjad Haneef, Ishtiyaq Ahmed and Ali Mohammad. The testimony of investigating officer Shri Nissar Ahmed who recorded the FIR on the verbal information given by the deceased and PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat lends further credit to the version emanating from PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat. He has also proved recording of the statement of deceased before he was shifted to GMC Hospital Jammu in view of his deteriorating condition. PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat has not faltered in his testimony recorded at the trial and the lengthy cross examination by accused has not created even the slightest dent in his version. On fine tooth combing of the deposition of PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat, we find it reliable and worthy of credit. B) Disclosure Statement of accused followed by recovery of weapon of offence. Apart from direct evidence, prosecution also relies upon the disclosure statement of accused leading to recovery of weapon of offence. Testimony of IO-Nissar Ahmed brings it to fore that during course of investigation, the accused was arrested and while in custody, the accused made a disclosure statement. The witness has proved the disclosure statement marked ExPW-MH. PWs-Mohd. Hafeez and Abid Hussain besides one Khurshid Ahmed are the witnesses to disclosure statement. PW-Abid Hussain deposed that while in Police custody the accused had stated that he had concealed the rod used as weapon of offence in the room of his house and he could produce the same. According to him, PW-Mohd. Hafeez was also present at that time when accused made the disclosure statement on 21.05.2006 in the afternoon. The witness, along with Mohd. Hafeez claims to have accompanied the Police party led by accused to the house of accused from where the accused recovered the rod which was seized vide recovery memo marked ExPW-MH-I. PW-Mohd. Hafeez has deposed in conformity with the testimony of PW-Abid Hussain. Both witnesses have identified the seized rod in Court. The witness, along with Mohd. Hafeez claims to have accompanied the Police party led by accused to the house of accused from where the accused recovered the rod which was seized vide recovery memo marked ExPW-MH-I. PW-Mohd. Hafeez has deposed in conformity with the testimony of PW-Abid Hussain. Both witnesses have identified the seized rod in Court. The recovery of iron rod of three feet length and 8 centimeter circumference from the house of accused at his instance in pursuance of disclosure statement is satisfactorily established by the testimony of PWs-Abid Hussain and Mohd. Hafeez. It is well settled that discovery of a fact exclusively on the basis of information given by accused while in custody of Police, whether such information amounts to a confession or not, is admissible in evidence under provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This mode of proof thus furnishes an additional mode to establish guilt of the accused. C) Expert Evidence. PW-Doctor Raj Kumar has conducted Autopsy on dead body of deceased-Arshad Sajid Bhat on 19.05.2006. He noticed following injuries on the body of deceased; i) Lacerated wound bone deep 1.5 centimeter into 2.5 centimeter on left franto parital region. (stitched) ii) Three linear scratch marks on right side of neck = cm. in length On internal examination, he found:- i) Linear left tempero frontal region ii) Extra dural haematoma on left tempero partial region iii) Meiurages over left temporal lobe torn. iv) Underlying left tempero frontal lobe lacerated. In his opinion, the cause of death was head injury. The injury had been caused by some blunt object. Time of duration was 12 hours. He proved the certificate marked Ex PW-MRK. He further opined that the injuries found on the body of deceased were sufficient to cause death. The post mortem was conducted by board of Doctors including the witness. He identified signatures of the Board Members on the report. He further opined that the weapon of offence shown to him in Court could have caused the said injuries. The certificate was marked as EXPW-MRK/1. The witness further stated that when the deceased was admitted in hospital, he was conscious. The deceased had told him on inquiry that somebody had assaulted him when he was going towards his home. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased came to hospital at about 8.30 PM. The certificate was marked as EXPW-MRK/1. The witness further stated that when the deceased was admitted in hospital, he was conscious. The deceased had told him on inquiry that somebody had assaulted him when he was going towards his home. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased came to hospital at about 8.30 PM. He was in full senses and necessary treatment was given to him. Surgeon specialist was called and he started the treatment. It was at 10.30 PM onwards that the condition of deceased started deteriorating and it was decided to shift him to GMC Hospital Jammu. He had prepared the post mortem report while Doctor Versha and Dr. Anil Gupta were conducting autopsy. He had not detected the fracture at the time when deceased was initially examined by him. Even if detected, such fracture could be fatal in every case. X-ray was not conducted at the initial stage. Specialized treatment may have saved the life. The Ambulance was provided to shift the injured to GMC Jammu. Partially digested food was found in the stomach of deceased which means the deceased had taken food less than three hours before his death. The injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by a fall also. Post mortem report proved by the Medical Expert establishes that the deceased died in consequence of head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It appears that the fracture of franto parital bone could not be detected immediately as no X-ray was conducted. However, the mere fact that a timely intervention by the Medical Experts could probably save life in such a case is of no help to accused as the injuries sustained were sufficient to cause death. The deceased was conscious when brought to hospital. He talked to the Medical Expert attributing causing of injury to an assault and not a fall as suggested by the accused. The post mortem findings lend further corroboration to the oral account of solitary eye witness-PW-Sajjad Hussain Bhat in regard to the causing of fatal injury to deceased. This also fits in with the prosecution version leaving no room for doubt that it was the accused and accused alone who committed the ghastly crime of murder of deceased. 9. Other evidence on record comprises of testimonies of Nazeer Ahmed, Riaz Ahmed, Murtaza Hussain, Mohd. Ramzan and Mohd. This also fits in with the prosecution version leaving no room for doubt that it was the accused and accused alone who committed the ghastly crime of murder of deceased. 9. Other evidence on record comprises of testimonies of Nazeer Ahmed, Riaz Ahmed, Murtaza Hussain, Mohd. Ramzan and Mohd. Saleem, who testified to the contents of seizure memos relating to body of deceased, clothes worn by deceased, samples lifted during investigation, seizure of Khata Register and Supurdnamas. IO-Nissar Ahmed has deposed about the seizures affected, site memos prepared, disclosure statement of accused recorded and recovery of weapon of offence affected in pursuance thereof at the instance of accused. The evidence of these witnesses is of formal character and lends further support to the prosecution version. 10. The accused has, while being examined under Section 342 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances emanating from prosecution evidence, plainly denied the prosecution allegations. He even denied factum of being a guarantor for Gias-ud-din and claimed that he was innocent and had been implicated on grounds of personal animosity. He has examined one Jan Mohd. as the solitary defence witness who retired as Sub Inspector of Police in 2008. He claimed that since the IO Nissar Ahmed Wani could not write Urdu language, he had prepared the seizure and other memos while working as Taftishi. Even the statements of witnesses were in his hand writing. He claimed that the witnesses were not present and he had handed over the statements to IO. He had prepared the documents on directions of Investigating Officer. It is in his cross-examination that he was a middle pass. The documents were prepared on the instructions of IO. It appears from his deposition that he is having a distant relation with accused and he has tried to derail the prosecution case by making false claims in regard to drawing up of memos including disclosure and recovery memos in absence of the accused and witnesses. It appears that the witness was associated with the Investigating Officer and has drafted the memos under instructions and supervision of IO. He has not conducted investigation himself and his version about investigation has to be discarded as being tainted with interest. 11. On reappraisal of evidence we find that prosecution has been successful in discharging its burden of proof of guilt of accused as the author of crime of murder of deceased ‘Arshad Sajjad Bhat. He has not conducted investigation himself and his version about investigation has to be discarded as being tainted with interest. 11. On reappraisal of evidence we find that prosecution has been successful in discharging its burden of proof of guilt of accused as the author of crime of murder of deceased ‘Arshad Sajjad Bhat. Findings recorded by Trial Court to the contrary are perverse as the legally admissible, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of the solitary eye witness’ Sajjad Ahmed Bhat duly corroborated by oral, documentary and Expert evidence has been improperly rejected. We have no hesitation in observing that Trial Court Judgment has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. We may add that though prosecution has not relied upon dying declaration as a mode of proof, the verbal information given by deceased who reported to Police Station in an injured state, while accompanied by his father, which led to recording of FIR in which the accused was nominated, amounts to a dying declaration. This is further reinforced by the testimonies of PWs- Abid Hussain, Ishtiyaq Ahmed and Mohd. Hafeez which induces belief that such dying declaration was reliable and made in a conscious state of mind as emanating from the testimony of medical Expert. We are shocked to observe that the learned Sessions Judge has adopted a perfunctory approach in appraisal of evidence brought on record by prosecution. We accordingly reverse the judgment of acquittal and find the accused guilty of offence under Section 302/341 of RPC for having committed offence of murder of Arshad Sajjid Bhat. 12. Choice of sentence for offence of murder lies between capital punishment and life term. It is well settled that the sentence must be commensurate with and proportionate to the level of the guilt proved in a given case. The instant case does not fall within the province of ‘rarest of rare cases Murder in the instant case is neither’ diabolical nor ‘depraved’. Thus, we propose life sentence for offence of murder as being appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case. Since life sentence is the minimum sentence prescribed for offence of murder, we need not put the accused on notice to address the Court on quantum of sentence. The convict is, accordingly, sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. Since life sentence is the minimum sentence prescribed for offence of murder, we need not put the accused on notice to address the Court on quantum of sentence. The convict is, accordingly, sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for offence under Section 302 RPC and to a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 341 RPC. The amount of fine shall be realized from his estate. The convict shall surrender to suffer sentence. Should he fail to surrender within two weeks, non-bailable warrants of arrest shall be levied to secure his presence and upon execution thereof he shall be committed to Central Jail- Jammu for suffering sentence. Copy of this judgment be provided to the convict free of cost.