JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.) No. 2, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Facts of the case are that a written report(Exhibit P-8) was submitted by Harish Chand(P.W.5) on 04.10.2008 to SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur to the effect that his son Vinod @ Veenu had gone to the house of his cousin at 9.00 P.M. to participate in a jagran. One Dabbu informed the informant at 10.45 P.M. on mobile phone that Lala had hatched up a conspiracy with his friends and murdered Vinod by opening fire at him in front of his house at Station Road Bajaria. It was alleged that Manoj, Ballu and Maharaj Singh, who were tenants in his house, took Vinod with them in a pre-planed manner and eventually murdered him. The incident took place at 10.15 P.M. and was seen by neighbourers of the area and the pedestrians. The informant took his brother to RBM Hospital where doctors declared Vinod as brought dead. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police lodged FIR No. 410/2008 (Exhibit P-71) for offences under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant and other accused Gajendra Singh @ Gajju and Raj Kumar @ Sonu for aforesaid offences. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 120B, 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and against accused Gajendra Singh @ Gajju and Raj Kumar @ Sonu under Section 120B and 302 read with Section 114 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, which they denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. In defence, no witness was produced on behalf of accused-appellant and five documents were got exhibited. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents. Thereafter, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. In defence, no witness was produced on behalf of accused-appellant and five documents were got exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 acquitted the other accused Gajendra Singh @ Gajju and Raj Kumar @ Sonu of the charges framed against them, however, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated hereinabove but at the same time, acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 120-B and Section 3/25 Arms Act. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, therefore, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act. As per the prosecution, the dispute occurred because the deceased had taken mobile handset of Sunil and a panchayat was convened on that dispute. The accused had gone to that panchayat with his friend but the prosecution failed to substantiate this by any evidence. The dispute occurred because of the mobile handset of Sunil. In fact, Sunil himself has not supported the case of the prosecution case and was declared hostile as he had denied having known the accused-appellants. According to case of the prosecution, Maharaj Singh, Manoj Sain and Ballu had invited Vinod to jagran. While Maharaj Singh, Manoj Sain and the deceased reached there on one scooty, they met Laxmikant and Ballu. Maharaj Singh (P.W.16) has denied having accompanied the deceased to the place of incident. All the eye witnesses of the prosecution were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Only witness who has supported the case of the prosecution is Manoj Saini (P.W.20) but his statement does not inspire confidence inasmuch as his conduct was quite unnatural. He has also not stated that he invited the deceased to the place of jagran. In fact, this witness fled away after the incident and was hiding for 3-4 days. Thereafter, his police statement was recorded. This witness because of his conduct has turned himself as unreliable witness. 4. He has also not stated that he invited the deceased to the place of jagran. In fact, this witness fled away after the incident and was hiding for 3-4 days. Thereafter, his police statement was recorded. This witness because of his conduct has turned himself as unreliable witness. 4. Learned Senior counsel further argued that testimony of Manoj Saini (P.W.20) is not corroborated by medical evidence. As per the medical evidence, the fire arm injury received by the deceased was opened parallelly, but Manoj Saini (P.W.20) has stated that accused fired at the deceased from roof top while he was riding scooty. In the absence of medical corroboration of injuries, testimony of Manoj Saini (P.W.20) cannot be relied. It is argued that the prosecution has shown recovery of one country made katta at the instance of accused-appellant whereas one live cartridge each from the house of two accused namely Sonu and Gajendra were recovered, which is highly unbelievable. Country made katta by use of which fire was opened at the deceased was sent to FSL, but the report of FSL has not been deliberately produced by the prosecution. It, therefore, be held that fire was not opened by using that katta. 5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove as to what was the blood group of the accused. Even though the accused was arrested after ten days, but surprisingly investigating officer recovered the clothes of the accused, which he was wearing at that time and they were still blood stained. It is against the human behaviour that a person would continuously wear the same clothes for as long as ten days knowing well that they were containing blood stains. Such recovery, therefore, does not inspire any confidence. It is argued that not only Maharaj Singh (P.W.16), but Manoj Sain (P.W.18) and Laxmikant (P.W.19) have also not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that whether katta and bullets, which were recovered were in a condition to be fired because there is no ballistic report or FSL or Armourer report regarding that effect. The accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The statements of the witnesses are having contradictions and court below has not appreciated the same. Citing judgments of the Supreme Court in Joseph Vs. The accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The statements of the witnesses are having contradictions and court below has not appreciated the same. Citing judgments of the Supreme Court in Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465 and State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh & Others, (2002) 9 SCC 537 , learned Senior Counsel argued that the prosecution can base its case on testimony of solitary eye witness but such evidence must be held reliable so as to record conviction on that basis. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal be allowed and the accused-appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 6. Mr. R.S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and supported the judgment of the trial court and referred to statements of various prosecution witnesses and exhibits. He argued that the evidence on record fully proves criminal conspiracy hatched by accused to commit murder of Vinod and for that purpose they assembled in the shop of the appellants. Gajendra abetted accused-appellant to commit murder of Vinod. Consequently, he opened fire by katta on Vinod as a result of which he died. The appeal be, therefore, dismissed. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the record of the trial court. 8. The trial court has relied on the testimony of Manoj Saini(P.W.20) for convicting the accused-appellant. He has stated that incident took place at 10.45 P.M. on 04.10.2008. On that day, Veenu called him on cell phone and informed that Ballu had argument with someone. Veenu was his neighbour and Ballu was staying in front of his garage. They were both known to him for quite some time. Sunil also used to come with these people and therefore, he was also known to him. This witness told Veenu that he would talk to him after reaching home. This witness reached home after half-an-hour. Veenu came to him and told that cell phone of Sunil was pledged with Sonu @ Raj Kumar, Gajendra @ Gajju, Lala @ Prashant, thus, this witness and Veenu would have to go to the shop of Lala to settle this dispute. This witness then stated that he along with Veenu started on feet for New Mandi for the shop of Lala situated there. This witness then stated that he along with Veenu started on feet for New Mandi for the shop of Lala situated there. On reaching Jagina Gate, they called Maharaj Singh Meena, who was staying as a tenant in the house of Dabbu, uncle of Veenu. Maharaj Singh Meena came to them on his scooty at around 8.30 P.M. They then rode his scooty for going to shop of Lala in New Mandi. Even before they could reach his shop, they met Ballu and one more boy en-route on their motor cycle. When they reached the shop of Lala, they found Sonu, Gajju and Lala standing on the roof top of his shop. On this, Sonu and Gajju told Lala that these persons have come as supporters of Sunil and they had to be taught a lesson. Thereupon, Lala opened fire at them, which hit the head of Veenu from behind, as a result of which, Veenu fell from scooty. When they tried to lift Venu, Sonu and Gajju told Lala that they should also be taught a lesson. Manoj Saini(P.W.20) then stated that he and Maharaj Singh Meena ran away from there for fear of their life. Maharaj Singh went to inform Dabbu about the incident. This witness then stated that he asked his younger brother to also inform the family members of Veenu (deceased) and Dabbu on phone. This witness has been subjected to intensive cross-examination by the defence but he remained unshaken, except minor contradictions here and there. The defence has tried to question the credibility of this witness by citing statement of Maharaj Singh and Ballu and argued that since these two persons have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, Manoj Saini (P.W.20) also could not be relied. Learned trial court, in our view, has rightly not countenanced this argument. Merely because out of three witness, two turned hostile, that by itself may not be a good reason to discard testimony of third witness, if his statement otherwise inspires confidence. We are not inclined to countenance the argument that conduct of this witness was unnatural because anyone would have run away from the place of incident for fear of his life. We are not inclined to countenance the argument that conduct of this witness was unnatural because anyone would have run away from the place of incident for fear of his life. This witness has been honest and forthright in stating that after Lala had opened fire on deceased Veenu, Sonu and Gajju again instigated him to open fire at this witness also and therefore, due to fear, he ran away from there and came to his house. He asked his brother Rakesh Kumar (P.W.17) to inform family members of Veenu and Dabbu and hide himself in the house because he was frightened. This kind of conduct cannot be said to be unnatural. 9. Dr. Ashok Mathur (P.W.30) stated that fire arm injury was sustained by the deceased and track of firearm injury was triangular in three directions and such kind of injury was possible if someone has opened fire from the roof. Dr. Sudeep Gupta (P.W.24) stated that such injury could not be caused by opening fire from top of the roof, but that cannot be a sufficient reason to discard testimony of Dr. Ashok Mathur (P.W.30) and Manoj Saini (P.W.20). As per site plan distance between the roof and the place where the deceased was standing was hardly 10 feet. Ocular testimony of Manoj Saini (P.W.20) is corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Ashok Mahtur (P.W.30). Merely because the prosecution was not able to prove charges against Gajendra @ Gajju and Raj Kumar @ Sonu, it does not mean that this by itself would become a reason for discarding testimony of Manoj Saini (P.W.20) so far as his evidence against accused-appellant is concerned. Charge against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act could not be proved because prosecution failed to produce the sanctioning authority in evidence and report of armourer or ballistic expert of any FSL report. However, evidence of eye witness, Manoj Saini (P.W.20) corroborated by testimony of medical expert, Dr. Ashok Mathur (P.W.30) would be sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant. 10. The Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has held that conviction of an accused can be sustained on the testimony of sole eyewitness if it inspires confidence and is wholly reliable. We may, in this connection, draw support from judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Phukan Vs. 10. The Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has held that conviction of an accused can be sustained on the testimony of sole eyewitness if it inspires confidence and is wholly reliable. We may, in this connection, draw support from judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 , para 3 of the report whereof reads as under:- “3. This case primarily hinges on the testimony of a single eyewitness Ajoy PW 3. Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the light of these settled principles that we shall examine the testimony of PW 3 Ajoy.” 11. In Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 , the Supreme Court after following its previous judgment in Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , held that conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable and unshaken by any circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court at the same time is convinced that he is a truthful witness. Para 7 and 14 of the report are relevant for this purpose, which are reproduced as under:- “7. Para 7 and 14 of the report are relevant for this purpose, which are reproduced as under:- “7. On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vadivelyu Thevar's case (supra) and, therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same lime, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present Indeed, the Courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence. 14. We have already discussed above that it is open to the Courts to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eye witness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eyewitnesses. The instant case, it may be pointed out, does not strictly fall within the category of those cases where only one witness is present and the case of the prosecution is sought to be proved by the statement of that witness alone. Here, three of the witnesses were produced but two of them turned hostile leaving the third alone and, therefore, on the principles already discussed, if the remaining eye witness is found to be trustworthy, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict the accused as observed by this Court in Vadivelu Thevar's quoted below; "But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” 12. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.” 12. As to who would be witness of sterling worth has been explained by the Supreme Court in Kuriya and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 . Para 24 of the report, which is relevant, is reproduced as under:- “24. “Sterling worth” is not an expression of absolute rigidity. The use of such an expression in the context of criminal jurisprudence would mean a witness worthy of credence, one who is reliable and truthful. This has to be gathered from the entire statement of the witnesses and the demeanour of the witnesses, if any, noticed by the court. Linguistically, “sterling worth” means “thoroughly excellent” or “of great value”. This term, in the context of criminal jurisprudence cannot be of any rigid meaning. It must be understood as a generic term. It is only an expression that is used for judging the worth of the statement of a witness. To our mind, the statements of the witnesses are reliable, trustworthy and deserve credence by the Court. They do not seem to be based on any falsehood.” 13. In view of above discussion, accused-appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. Judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed by the trial court is confirmed.