JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.15 of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Session Case No.64/12, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The background facts which led to the trial of the appellant are summarised thus: On 31.12.11 at 12.30 A.M., Shri Momanram (PW 4), Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 4 KSP gave telephonic information to the Police Station, Tibbi to the effect that in Narayan Ram Meghwal's Dhhani, Narayan Ram has caused death of his younger brother Bhajana Ram by gandasi blows. Later, Smt. Indra (PW 1), the sister of Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram, lodged a written report (Ex.D/1) at Police Station, Tibbi, alleging therein that her mother Smt. Rameshwari holds agriculture land ad measuring 10 bighas comprising chak 6 KSP. There exists a dhhani (hamlet) in the said agriculture field wherein her mother Rameshwari, brothers Bhajana Ram & Narayan Ram and she herself are residing. Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram are both habitual drinkers and used to quarrel under intoxication of liquor. On the fateful day at about 10 P.M. when she, her mother and niece Kalawati (PW 8) had gone to bed after taking meal, Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram were quarreling. During the quarrel, Narayan Ram brought a gandasi and with an intention to kill Bhajana Ram, gave a gandasi blow to him. When Smt. Indra (PW 1) and Kalawati (PW 8) attempted to rescue Bhajana Ram, Narayan Ram threatened to kill them. Narayan Ram inflicted severe injuries by gandasi on the head and other parts of body of Bhajana Ram, as a result whereof, he died on the spot. Thereafter, Narayan Ram fled away from the place of occurrence. Smt. Indra went to the house of Sarpanch Moman Ram (PW 4), who accompany her to the police station and the report was lodged. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.D/1) lodged as aforesaid, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Tibbi, against the accused appellant for offence under section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. Necessary memos were drawn, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after inquest proceedings, dead body was subjected to autopsy. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.D/1) lodged as aforesaid, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Tibbi, against the accused appellant for offence under section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. Necessary memos were drawn, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after inquest proceedings, dead body was subjected to autopsy. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the police against the accused appellant for offence under section 302 IPC before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi, who in his turn committed the matter to the Session Judge, Hanumangarh, which was later transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh for trial. The trial Judge framed the charge against the accused-appellant for offence under section 302 IPC. The accused appellant pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 12 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 12) and exhibited documentary evidence as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/37. The accused-appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying his involvement in the commission of crime stated that he has been falsely implicated. No witness was produced in defence, however, written report, the statement of Smt. Indra (PW 1) and Moman Ram (PW 4) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were exhibited in evidence as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3 respectively. 6. After due consideration of the evidence on record and the rival submissions, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. 7. Heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae contended that the trial Judge has seriously erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of testimony of alleged eye witness Smt. Indra (PW 1). Learned counsel drawing the attention of this court to the deposition of Smt. Indra (PW 1) submitted that her statement suffers from self contradictions and creates a doubt about her presence at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel urged that yet another eye witness Kalawati (PW 8) has turned hostile and supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this court to the deposition of Smt. Indra (PW 1) submitted that her statement suffers from self contradictions and creates a doubt about her presence at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel urged that yet another eye witness Kalawati (PW 8) has turned hostile and supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 30.12.11, however, the written report (Ex.D/1) was lodged on 31.12.11 at 8.15 A.M. Further, as per the prosecution, the police was already informed about the incident on 31.12.11 at 12.30 A.M. telephonically and pursuant thereto, Girdhari Lal, ASI had proceeded to the place of occurrence, who at 2 A.M., informed SHO, Police Station, Tibbi that body of Bhajana Ram, brother of Narayan Ram, covered in blood, is lying in a room and no family member is available at home and thus, the information being already available with the police, the written report (Ex.D/1) submitted by Smt. Indra (PW 1), could have been treated to be FIR. Learned counsel submitted that as per deposition of Moman Ram (PW 4), Smt. Indra (PW 1) came to his house and informed that her both the brothers were quarreling and thereupon, he asked Kishan Kumar to accompany Smt. Indra (PW 1) and later, Kishan Kumar informed him about Bhajana Ram's body lying covered in blood and thus, the question of Smt. Indra (PW 1) being present at the place of occurrence when Narayan Ram inflicted gandasi blows on deceased Bhajana Ram does arise. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the husband of Smt. Indra deserted her only for the reason that he wanted share in the land held by Indra's mother Smt. Rameshwari and thus, the possibility of Smt. Indra (PW 1) falsely implicating her brother cannot be ruled out. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the deposition of Momanram (PW 4). Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of Smt. Indra (PW 1) in informing Moman Ram (PW 4) residing at a distance of 1 km. by personally going there and informing any other family member, is unnatural. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the deposition of Momanram (PW 4). Learned counsel submitted that the conduct of Smt. Indra (PW 1) in informing Moman Ram (PW 4) residing at a distance of 1 km. by personally going there and informing any other family member, is unnatural. Learned counsel would submit that Smt. Indra (PW 1) cannot be considered to be an eye witness of sterling worth and thus, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of her testimony is sustainable in the eyes of law. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that as per deposition of Dr. Lalit Kumar(PW 10), any single injury was sufficient to cause death and therefore, it cannot be said that appellant had any intention to cause death of Bhajana Ram and thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable. 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the deposition of eye witnesses Smt. Indra (PW 1) does suffer from any contradictions or omissions and is wholly reliable. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the deposition of the eye witness stand corroborated by the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. blood stained gandasi as also apparels Kamij and Lower at the instance of accused appellant. It is submitted that the gandasi contained the blood of the same group that of deceased, which stands proved by FSL report (Ex.P/16). That apart, the deposition of Smt. Indra (PW 1) regarding injuries caused stands corroborated by medical evidence and thus, the guilt of the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the evidence on record thoroughly. 11. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma (PW 10) conducted autopsy of the dead body of Bhajana Ram. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P/26), following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Bhajana Ram:- (1) Incised wound 5" x 2" Rt. Post auricular region bone deep. (2) Incised wound 3" x 1" Rt. gluteal region bone deep. (3) Incised wound 3' x 1" Rt. Knee jt.ant. fascia deep. (4) Incised wound Lt. Shin midway ant. (5) Incised wound 3" x 1" Rt. foot dorsalaterally underlying 3rd, 4th & 5th metatarsal bone present. (6) Incised wound 2" x 1" Lt. Foot dorsally underlying 4th metatarsal bone present. (2) Incised wound 3" x 1" Rt. gluteal region bone deep. (3) Incised wound 3' x 1" Rt. Knee jt.ant. fascia deep. (4) Incised wound Lt. Shin midway ant. (5) Incised wound 3" x 1" Rt. foot dorsalaterally underlying 3rd, 4th & 5th metatarsal bone present. (6) Incised wound 2" x 1" Lt. Foot dorsally underlying 4th metatarsal bone present. (7) Sided occipital bone present along mastoid bone Rt. Side. (8) Great vessels cut sharply leading to external haemorrhage on Rt. side of neck. The cause of death of Bhajana Ram is opined to be CRF following severe crush injury to head and external carotid vessels in neck. 12. Looking at the nature of injuries, it is apparent that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like gandasi. Thus, on the basis of the medical evidence on record, it is established beyond doubt that the death of deceased Bhajana Ram was homicidal in nature. 13. Indisputably, the eye witnesses Smt. Indra (PW 1) and Ms. Kalawati (PW 8) examined by the prosecution are closely related to the convict appellant being his sister and niece respectively. Ms. Kalawati (PW 8) having turned hostile, the prosecution case rests on the testimony of the eye witness Smt. Indra (PW 1) and recoveries effected at the instance of appellant. 14. Smt. Indra (PW 1) in her deposition before the Court stated that they are four sisters and five brothers. Her mother holds 10 bighas land in chak 6 KSP. She alongwith her mother and two brothers Narayan Ram and Bhajana Ram used to reside in the dhhani constructed in the said field. A few days back, her niece had also come there. Her remaining brothers are residing at Rattewala. She has been deserted by her husband and has no issue. She is residing with her mother for last 4-5 years. Her mother an old lady of 80 years, has no visibility and her hearing is also impaired. Bhajana Ram is bachelor and Narayan Ram has deserted his wife. On the fateful day in the night, she, her niece and mother were sleeping. Bhajana Ram was also sleeping. In the night she awakened, went for urination and came back. Later when Bhajana Ram went for urination, Narayan Ram inflicted four gandasi blows to Bhajana Ram. Bhajana Ram is bachelor and Narayan Ram has deserted his wife. On the fateful day in the night, she, her niece and mother were sleeping. Bhajana Ram was also sleeping. In the night she awakened, went for urination and came back. Later when Bhajana Ram went for urination, Narayan Ram inflicted four gandasi blows to Bhajana Ram. When they attempted to rescue Bhajana Ram, Narayan Ram pushed them and while bolting the door of the room from inside, again inflicted gandasi blows to Bhajana Ram on his hands, legs and whole body was cut by gandasi blows. They went to the dhhani nearby from where they were advised to go to Sarpanch Moman Ram. Later, they came back to the place of occurrence. Bhajana Ram (sic Narayan Ram) while bolting the door of the room from inside, stayed there. They spent the night while sitting along the fire lighted and lodged the report on the next day in the morning at Police Station, Tibbi. In cross examination, she deposed that when Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram were quarreling, they all the three women were sleeping. She saw the gandasi in the hands of Narayan Ram when she awakened for natural call. She deposed that when they went to the neighbours dhhani in the meantime, Narayan Ram left the place and went away to Kumharo Ki Dhhani. The suggestion that Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram had quarrel for acquiring the land held by their mother, was accepted by her as correct. On being contradicted with the statement in written report (Ex.D/1) and her statement before the police recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2), she stated that whatever she has deposed before the court was revealed to the police and she does know why the same has been recorded therein. 15. Kalawati (PW 8), who has turned hostile, in her examination-in-chief denied her presence at the place of occurrence, stating that she had gone to some other dhhani and therefore, she did know anything about the quarrel between her two maternal uncles. However, in cross examination, she deposed that when Bhajana Ram was given beating, Narayan Ram was there as he had gone for natural call and further that she could recognize the persons who had given beating to Bhajana Ram on account of darkness. However, in cross examination, she deposed that when Bhajana Ram was given beating, Narayan Ram was there as he had gone for natural call and further that she could recognize the persons who had given beating to Bhajana Ram on account of darkness. Suffice it to say that the said witness while denying her presence at the place of occurrence in examination-in-chief, has accepted her presence at the time of occurrence in cross examination. Thus, it appears that Ms. Kalawati (PW 8) has suppressed the truth just to save his uncle. 16. Moman Ram (PW 4) has deposed that at about 12.30 A.M., Smt. Indra (PW 1) came to him and revealed that Narayan Ram and Bhajana Ram both drunken were quarreling. Then, he sent somebody at the spot, who later informed him that Bhajana Ram was lying covered in blood, thereupon he informed the police by mobile phone and went to the place of occurrence with the police where he saw Bhajana Ram lying dead. He admitted that written report (Ex.D/1) submitted to the police bears his signature. In cross examination, he inter alia stated that when Indra (PW 1) came to him, till that time, they had no knowledge about the incident being already occurred at the home. He further deposed that he had sent Kishan Kumar with Indra and later Kishan Kumar informed him that Bhajana Ram was lying covered in blood. 17. It is true that written report (Ex.D/1) and the statement of Smt. Indra (PW 1) before the police (Ex.D/2) do contain the complete details in the manner the incident occurred but there exists no contradictions on the material points. In her statement (Ex.D/2) Smt. Indra (PW 1) has categorically stated that Bhajana Ram and Narayan Ram both drunken were quarreling regarding the work in agriculture field and while Bhajana Ram getting up from his cot, was going for natural call, Narayan Ram with an intention to kill Bhajana Ram, inflicted lathi blow on his head, Bhajana Ram fell down and when Indra (PW 1) and Kalawati (PW 8) attempted to rescue him, threatening was given to kill them and thereafter, Narayan Ram while ousting Smt. Indra (PW 1) alongwith her mother and Ms. Kalawati (PW 8) from the room, bolted the door of the room from inside and continued to beat Bhajana Ram, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Kalawati (PW 8) from the room, bolted the door of the room from inside and continued to beat Bhajana Ram, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thus, the statement of Smt. Indra (PW 1) before the court is found to be contrary to what she had stated before the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2). The statement of Smt. Indra (PW 1) regarding Narayan Ram causing death of Bhajana Ram by gandasi blow is in contradiction with the details of the incident occurred as contained in written report (Ex.D/1) either. 18. On close scrutiny of the statement of the eye witness Smt. Indra (PW 1), we find it consistent on material points and do find any good reason for rejecting her evidence as untrustworthy or unreliable. Indisputably, the incident had occurred in the dwelling house and therefore, Smt. Indra (PW 1), the sister of the accused appellant being inmate of house was a most natural witness. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason as to why she should falsely implicate her own brother in the commission of a crime. 19. It is settled law that a conviction can be based on testimony of even a solitary eye witness if his version is of sterling worth and further verdict of the court can rest even on sole eye witness if the court is fully satisfied that such person is a truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The reference in this regard may be made of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of "Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab", (1973) 3 SCC 657 and "Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar", (1996)1 SCC 614 . 20. After considering the evidence on record in its entirety and objectivity, we are of the considered opinion that the eye witnesses Smt. Indra (PW 1) is the witness of sterling worth, her testimony being cogent, convincing, reliable and in consonance with the medical evidence, sufficiently proves the prosecution case. 21. Coming to the recovery of the gandasi and apparels kamij and lower on the information being furnished by accused Narayan Ram, it is noticed that the witness of the recovery Dharam Pal (PW 5) has categorically deposed that gandasi was recovered by the police in his presence vide Ex.P/7, which bears his signature. 21. Coming to the recovery of the gandasi and apparels kamij and lower on the information being furnished by accused Narayan Ram, it is noticed that the witness of the recovery Dharam Pal (PW 5) has categorically deposed that gandasi was recovered by the police in his presence vide Ex.P/7, which bears his signature. He has also admitted his signature on site plan of recovery (Ex.P/8). It is noticed that Ex.P/7 relates to recovery of blood stained gandasi and the apparels Kamij and Lower as well. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/16), the gandasi recovered at the instance of the accused appellant was found to be stained with AB group blood i.e. the blood group of the deceased. 22. The conduct of Smt. Indra (PW 1) in going to nearby dhhani and there on being advised approaching the Sarpanch Moman Ram (PW 4) and lodging the written report (Ex.D/1), accompanying him, cannot be said to be unnatural. It has come on record that her other brothers were residing in village Rattewala. It is the case set out by the accused appellant that any of other close relatives was residing nearby. Thus, nothing turns on the question that she did immediately inform about the incident to any of her relatives. 23. A perusal of statement of Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW 10) reveals that he has nowhere stated that any of the injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient to cause death. The cause of death was clearly opined to be CRF following severe crush injury to head & cutting of external carotid vessels leading to severe external haemorrhage. As a matter of fact, in the cross examination, Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW 10) on being suggested has only deposed that any single injury out of the injuries no. 2 to 6 were sufficient to cause death. Obviously, the fatal injuries were found to be injuries no. 1, 7 & 8. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Amicus Curiae that none of the injury suffered by the deceased Bhajana Ram was sufficient to cause death as projected on the basis of the deposition of Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW 10) is found to be contrary to the evidence on record. 24. 1, 7 & 8. In this view of the matter, the contention of the Amicus Curiae that none of the injury suffered by the deceased Bhajana Ram was sufficient to cause death as projected on the basis of the deposition of Dr. Lalit Kumar (PW 10) is found to be contrary to the evidence on record. 24. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC and accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC. 25. In the result, the appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.