JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. Present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.11.2007 and order dated 21.11.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, in Session Trial No. 28 of 2005 (State vs. Anjani Singh & Ors.), whereby appellants-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh have been convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC and appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh has been convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC. Appellants-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh were sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302 of IPC and similarly appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh was also sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, under Section 302/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo two years simple imprisonment. Appellants-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, under Section 307 of IPC and appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 307/34 and in default of payment of fine they have to undergo one year simple imprisonment. All the three appellants-accused were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 504 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they have to undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 20.10.2004 there was a function of Durga Idol establishment at the village of complainant and on that occasion, a drama was being played. During that program, applicant-accused Anjani Singh started beating son of complainant, aged about 10 years, who was one of the audience in the said program. When objected by complainant Anugrah Narayan @ Baldev, appellant-accused Anjani Singh got infuriated and went away. At about 9:30 PM, accused-appellant Anjani Singh having illicit country made pistol, while his brother Ravindra Singh having his licensed rifle and their father Rishabh Dev Singh having lathi, came there and exhorted to kill them. Accused-appellant Anjani Singh and Ravinder Singh started firing with their respective weapons, and thereby caused firearm injuries to complainant Anugrah Narayan, one Harendra Kumar Yadav, Mitrunjay Yadav, Vimlesh Dubey, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kant Brahma and Banarasi. Accused-appellant Anjani Singh and Ravinder Singh started firing with their respective weapons, and thereby caused firearm injuries to complainant Anugrah Narayan, one Harendra Kumar Yadav, Mitrunjay Yadav, Vimlesh Dubey, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kant Brahma and Banarasi. Krishna Kant Brahma and Banarasi died at the spot of firearm injuries. The complainant and other persons caught Ravindra Singh and snatched his rifle and during scramble, rifle was broken into pieces, however, all the three accused persons ran away from the spot. The complainant reported the matter to police by submitting written tahreer Ex. Ka-1 and broken rifle was also produced before police. 3. On the basis of written tahreer, the case was registered on 20.10.2004 at 22:30 hours under Sections 307, 302 of IPC against all the three accused persons. The alleged broken rifle was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex. Ka-2. One magazine of 315 bore, one empty cartridge of 315 bore were found at the spot and same were seized by memo Ex. Ka-18. Samples of blood stained and plain soil were also taken from the spot vide Ex. Ka-17. 4. Inquest proceedings were conducted by S.I. Murahu Singh and regarding deceased Krishna Kant inquest report Ex. Ka-3 and regarding deceased Banarasi inquest report Ex. Ka-4 were prepared. Dead bodies of both the deceased were sealed and sent for postmortem. 5. The postmortem on the dead bodies of both the deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. G.C. Maurya on 21.10.2004, and as per postmortem report Ex. Ka-5, deceased Krishna Kant Verma has sustained following injuries: “(1) Firearm wound of entry of the scalp right side 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 2.0 cm above and post to the right ear lobe. Margin blackened and inverted. (2) Firearm wound of exit on the scalp at occipital area 6.0 cm x 5.0 cm. Margin everted brain matter protruding out. Lw (i) and (ii) injuries are connected to each other. Small skin tag in between both injuries." As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased was coma as a result of antemortem injuries. As per postmortem report, Ex. Ka-6, deceased Banarasi has sustained following injuries: (i) Firearm wound of entry on the right side forehead 2.5 cm x 2.0 cm brain cavity deep just above the medial end of right eyebrow. Margin inverted and blackened. As per postmortem report, Ex. Ka-6, deceased Banarasi has sustained following injuries: (i) Firearm wound of entry on the right side forehead 2.5 cm x 2.0 cm brain cavity deep just above the medial end of right eyebrow. Margin inverted and blackened. (ii) Firearm wound of exit on the post of occipital area right side 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep 12.0 cm above the C-7 vertebra. Margin everted (i) and (ii) are communicating to each other. Note: recovered two small metallic pellets from the brain tissue wound of exit scabbed. As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the deceased was coma as a result of antemortem injuries. Time of death was stated about one day. 6. The injured persons were medically examined by PW-14 Dr. V.K. Gupta. As per the MLC Ex. Ka-9, injured Vimlesh Kumar Dubey sustained following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on chin size 3.0 cm x 0.7 cm x skin deep blackening present around it. (ii) Firearm wound of entry on left side clavicular fossa size 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm x depth kept under observation blackening present, margin inverted colour red soft scabbed. (iii) Firearm wound of exit on just side clavicle (outer side) size 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm x depth kept under observation, margin everted, colour red soft. (iv) Firearm wound of entry on left side posterior axillary fold below arm size 0.7 cm x 1.0 cm colour red with blackening around it depth kept under observation, margin inverted. (v) Firearm wound of exit size 1.0 cm x 1.5 cm x depth kept under observation colour red soft scabed margin everted. (vi) Multiple tiny abrasions on lateral aspect left side arm lateral armpit size 2 mm diameter to 4 mm diameter blackening present. Opinion: Above injuries no.1 and 6 are simple rest are kept under observation, all are due to some firearm, duration fresh admitted and refer to surgeon. As per MLC Ex. Ka-8, injured Anugrah Narayan Singh sustained following injuries : (1) Tiny lacerated wound on anterior aspect of 6 cm above from wrist joint bleeding present. (2) Deep abrasion on medial aspect of right arm size x 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm colour red blackening present around it. Injury no.1 is kept under observation, injury no.2 is simple both are due to some firearm, duration fresh. As per MLC Ex. (2) Deep abrasion on medial aspect of right arm size x 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm colour red blackening present around it. Injury no.1 is kept under observation, injury no.2 is simple both are due to some firearm, duration fresh. As per MLC Ex. Ka-12, injured Umesh Kumar Thakur sustained following injuries: (i) Firearm wound of entry on eyebrow right side size 0.5 mm diameter margin inverted blackening present around it, colour red soft scabbed. (ii) Firearm on left side deltoied region size 3 mm diameter colour red blackening present around it. Opinion : Above injuries are kept under observation, refer to eye surgeon caused by some firearm weapon, duration fresh. As per MLC Ex. Ka-13, injured Harendra Kumar Yadav sustained following injuries : 1. Firearm wound of entry on upper lip size 1.0 cm diameter, margin inverted blackening present around it bleeding. Opinion: Above injury is kept under observation caused by firearm, duration fresh. As per MLC Ex. Ka-11, injured Mitrunjay Yadav sustained following injuries: (i) Lacerated wound on right side parital eminance of skull size 6 cm x 3 cm colour red soft scabbed blackening around it. (ii) Back pain over right side scapula region. Opinion: Above injury no.1 is kept under observation caused by some firearm duration fresh. 7. Initially, investigation of case was conducted by S.I. Rahul Singh and thereafter subsequent investigation was conducted by PW-15 M.P. Singh and charge-sheet was filed against all three accused persons. 8. While framing charge, accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh were charged by the learned trial court under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC while accused Rishabh Dev was charged under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC. 9. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the prosecution version and claimed false implication. However, no evidence led in their defence. 10. After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, appellants Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC, while accused-appellant Rishabh Dev Singh was convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC, vide impugned judgment and order and they were sentenced as stated above. 11. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and order of trial court, accused-appellants have preferred present criminal appeal. 12. 11. Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and order of trial court, accused-appellants have preferred present criminal appeal. 12. We have heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ajit Kumar Ray, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted: (i) that the presence of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh at the time of alleged incident is highly doubtful. He has sustained merely superficial injuries and quite possibly these injuries were self inflicted. Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 is an interested witness and in absence of any corroboration from independent witness, his testimony cannot be acted upon. As per version of PW-1, the accused persons have fired at him with intention to kill but there was absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the deceased persons. (ii) that most of the material witnesses including that of PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur, PW-4 Mahesh Verma, PW-5 Venkat Raman Pratap Singh, PW-6 Shivanand Verma @ Shukul Verma, PW-7 Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, PW-8 Devanand Singh, PW-9 Janak Singh, PW-10 Harendra Kumar Yadav and PW-13 Manoj Singh, have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. It was submitted that even injured witnesses have not stated anything regarding involvement of accused-appellants, thus, prosecution version is highly doubtful. (iii) that PW-2 Vimlesh Kumar Dubey has also not made any incriminating statement against accused-appellants and he was not declared hostile by prosecution. (iv) that there are serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh. He was not got medically examined by police nor any Chiththi Majroobi was sent by police for his medical examination. 14. Per contra, it was submitted by learned State counsel that Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 is an injured eye-witness of incident and he has made cogent and consistent statement against all accused persons. The rifle of accused Ravindra Singh was also snatched from him and the same was produced before police. The statement of Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 is supported by medical evidence. It was argued that merely because other eye-witnesses turned hostile, it would not render testimony of PW-1 doubtful or unreliable. The conviction of appellants is based on evidence and learned trial court was justified in convicting them. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 16. It was argued that merely because other eye-witnesses turned hostile, it would not render testimony of PW-1 doubtful or unreliable. The conviction of appellants is based on evidence and learned trial court was justified in convicting them. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 16. PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh @ Baldev stated that on 20.10.2004, a theatre was being played on the occasion of establishment of Durga Idol at his village and there was light of generator. His son, aged about 10 years, was seeing theatre and at the same time at 8:30 PM, accused-appellant Anjani Singh started slapping him. When Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 objected, he infuriated and went away. At about 9:00 PM, Anjani Singh having country made pistol, Ravindra Singh having licensed rifle, while Rishabh Dev Singh having lathi came there and Rishabh Dev Singh exhorted to kill them. Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh opened fire with intention to kill them and one of the pellet hit Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1, while one Harendra Yadav, Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, Vimlesh Kumar Dubey, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kant and Banarasi also sustained pellet injury and stampead took place. Due to firearm injuries, Krishna Kant and Banarasi died at the spot. Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 and others over powered Ravindra Singh and snatched his rifle and during scramble rifle was broken. Accused-appellants Anjani Singh, Ravindra Singh and Rishabh Dev Singh ran away by making firing. This incident was witnessed by Venkat Raman Pratap Singh, Devanand Singh, Janak Singh, Manoj Singh and others. Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 went to the police station, while other injured were taken to district hospital. PW-1 got lodged the case by submitting tahreer Ex.Ka.1 and alleged rifle was also produced before Police which was seized vide memo Ex.Ka.2. 17. PW-2 Vimlesh Kumar Dubey stated that on 20.10.2004 a theater was being played at his village on the occasion of Durga Idol Establishment. At about 9:10 PM, light of generator had gone off and during that period he sustained some pellet injuries. Umesh Kumar, Mitrunjay Yadav, Anugrah Narayan Singh, Harendra Yadav, Krishna Kant Verma and Banarasi have also sustained injuries. 18. PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur stated that on 20.10.2004, while a theater was being played on the occasion of Durga Idol establishment, at around 9:30 PM light of generator has gone off and suddenly he sustained some pellet injury and became unconscious. Umesh Kumar, Mitrunjay Yadav, Anugrah Narayan Singh, Harendra Yadav, Krishna Kant Verma and Banarasi have also sustained injuries. 18. PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur stated that on 20.10.2004, while a theater was being played on the occasion of Durga Idol establishment, at around 9:30 PM light of generator has gone off and suddenly he sustained some pellet injury and became unconscious. He could not see as to who has fired at him and he does not know whether any other person has also sustained injury or not. PW-3 was declared hostile by the prosecution. 19. PW-4 Mahesh Verma, has stated that on the day of incident while a theater was being played on the occasion of establishment of Durga Idol, he reached there at about 10:00 PM and saw that Banarasi and Krishna Kant Verma were lying dead but he could not see who has killed them nor he has seen any injured person. PW-4 was declared hostile. 20. PW-5 Venkat Raman Pratap Singh has stated that he was not present at the spot and has not seen the alleged incident. Similarly, PW-6 Shivanand Verma @ Sukul Verma has stated that he was not present at the spot and after the incident when he reached there, his brother Krishna Kant Verma was lying dead of fire-arm injuries but he could not see who has killed him. PW-7 Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, stated that on the day of incident while a theater was being played on the occasion of Durga Idol establishment, a fire was shot and he sustained firearm injury but due to darkness he could not see the miscreants. PW-8 Devanand Singh has stated that he was not present at the spot and thus, cannot tell who has fired. Similar is the statements of PW-9 Janak Singh, PW-10 Harendra Kumar Yadav and PW-13 Manoj Singh. All these witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined from the side of prosecution. 21. Close scrutiny of evidence shows that the conviction of appellants is based on sole testimony of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh. Though several other persons have also sustained injuries in the alleged incident, but they have not supported prosecution case and turned hostile. 22. The testimony of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh appears to be clear and cogent. He cannot be termed as an interested witness. Though several other persons have also sustained injuries in the alleged incident, but they have not supported prosecution case and turned hostile. 22. The testimony of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh appears to be clear and cogent. He cannot be termed as an interested witness. In the alleged incident deceased Krishna Kant Verma and Banarasi are not shown related to him. There is nothing on record to indicate that PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh was related to either of deceased or was otherwise connected with them, rather PW-4 Mahesh Verma was uncle of deceased Krishna Kant Verma, PW-6 Shivanand Verma @ Sukul Verma, was brother of deceased Krishna Kant Verma, but quite surprisingly, they have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. No such reason has been shown that PW-1 was having any enmity with accused persons. PW-1, Anugrah Narayan Singh has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but he remained firm and no material contradiction or inconsistency could emerge in this cross-examination. It is well settled that the conviction can be based on sole testimony of eye-witness. It is well established that as a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outways the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. Though, in some cases the court may insist on corroboration where the nature of testimony of single witness itself requires, as a rule of prudence. Whether corroboration of testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and there is no general rule. The matter thus, must depend upon the circumstances of each cases and the quality of evidence of single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of accused person on such proof. It is well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact, if the oral testimony of a witness is wholly reliable, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion and may convict on the testimony of a single witness. It is well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact, if the oral testimony of a witness is wholly reliable, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion and may convict on the testimony of a single witness. It is open to the Courts to record a conviction on the basis of 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 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 statement of that witness was necessary by other eye-witnesses. Similar view, that it is not quantity but quality of the evidence which matters, has been taken by the Apex Court in Rajesh Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC page no.2. The Supreme Court in Laxmibai and another Vs. Bhagwantbuva and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 has held as under:- "39. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise." 23. It was stated that legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court in Yanob Sheikh Allias Gagu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 428 observed that in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence produced by the prosecution has to be qualitative and may not be quantitative. The Supreme Court in Gulam Sarbar Vs. The Supreme Court in Yanob Sheikh Allias Gagu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 428 observed that in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence produced by the prosecution has to be qualitative and may not be quantitative. The Supreme Court in Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 3 SCC 401 has observed as under:- ''In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Even in Probate cases, where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that production of more witnesses does not carry any weight. Thus, conviction can even be based on the testimony of a sole eye witness, if the same inspires confidence. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar & Anr. v. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626 ; Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10 ; and Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana JT 2013(1) SC 222)." 24. In the present case, it may be stated that PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh has sustained injury in the alleged incident. So far as the contention is concerned, the alleged injuries were not of firearm injuries and rather the same were self inflicted, it has no basis. The medical examination report of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh clearly indicates that he has sustained one lacerated wound and one deep abrasion. The concerned doctor PW-14 Dr. So far as the contention is concerned, the alleged injuries were not of firearm injuries and rather the same were self inflicted, it has no basis. The medical examination report of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh clearly indicates that he has sustained one lacerated wound and one deep abrasion. The concerned doctor PW-14 Dr. V.K. Gupta has clearly stated that there was blackening around injury No. 2 and that both these injuries were caused by firearm. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Dr. V.K. Gupta, PW-14. Merely, because after the incident he was not got medically examined by the police by forwarding the letter (Chithi Majroobi) to hospital for conducting his medical examination, it would not make any difference. There is no such law that after the incident injured has necessarily to be got examined by the police by sending a letter to the doctor. It would be pertinent to mention here that FIR of alleged incident has been lodged within two hours of incident, while police station was situated at a distance of 10 kilometers from the place of occurrence and in the FIR, it was clearly mentioned that PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh has sustained firearm injuries. Even some of the other injured persons, who turned hostile, have admitted that an incident of firing took place and PW 1 Anugrah Naratan Singh also sustained injury in the same. In such facts and circumstances, if police did not send any letter to concerned doctor for medical examination of Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1, it would not make any difference. The contention of learned counsel has no substance. 25. The statement of Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1 appears to be cogent and trustworthy and his version is consistent with the FIR and is also supported by his medical examination. His version is further consistent with the postmortem reports of the deceased persons and medical examination reports of other injured persons. 26. It is correct that PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur, PW-4 Mahesh Verma, PW-5 Venkat Raman Pratap Singh, PW-6 Shivanand Verma @ Shukul Verma, PW-7 Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, PW-8 Devanand Singh, PW-9 Janak Singh, PW-10 Harendra Kumar Yadav and PW13 Manoj Singh have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile, however most of them admitted the fact that the incident of firing took place while theater was being played in the village on the occasion of establishment of Durga Idol. They have also admitted that PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh, PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur, PW-7 Mitrunjay Kumar Yadav, have sustained firearm injuries in the alleged incident and that Krishna Kant and Banarasi have died at the spot of firearm injuries sustained in the incident. Their hostility is on the point that they could not see as to who has made alleged firing on the deceased persons and the injured persons. Some of them have stated that at that time there was darkness. Here it may be pointed out that it is the consistent case of all the prosecution witnesses including that of hostile witnesses that at about 9/9:30 PM alleged incident took place while a theater was being played on the occasion of establishment of Durga Idol. It is quite natural that alleged theater might not have been played in darkness. PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh has clearly and consistently stated that there was light of generator. PW-2 Vimlesh Kumar Dubey, PW-3 Umesh Kumar Thakur, have also accepted that there was generator light however, they have stated that at that time the light of generator has gone off. The fact that there was generator light is further established by the testimony of PW-10 Harendra Kumar Yadav, who has stated that he has arranged tent and generator for theater at the spot on the occasion of Durga Idol establishment and he also stated that deceased Banarasi was his employee. Thus, it stands established that there was generator light. Considering all the facts, in the attending facts and circumstances, it clearly emerges that there was light of generator at the spot. 27. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that above mentioned witnesses, who have been declared hostile, deliberately did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile just to help accused-appellants. It has also to be kept in mind that as per prosecution version, accused-appellants Ravindra Singh and Anjani Singh have made indiscriminate firing in the alleged programme in their village causing murder of two persons and causing injuries to several other persons. Thus, the incident is quite daring and in view of these facts and circumstances, this possibility cannot be ruled out that witnesses might not have come forward to depose against them due to fear. In Mahendra Chawla & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. Thus, the incident is quite daring and in view of these facts and circumstances, this possibility cannot be ruled out that witnesses might not have come forward to depose against them due to fear. In Mahendra Chawla & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016 decided on 05.12.2018 the Apex Court held as under: "It hardly needs to be emphasised that one of the main reasons for witnesses to turn hostile is that they are not accorded appropriate protection by the State. It is a harsh reality, particularly, in those cases where the accused persons/criminals are tried for heinous offences, or where the accused persons are influential persons or in a dominating position that they make attempts to terrorize or intimidate the witnesses because of which these witnesses either avoid coming to courts or refrain from deposing truthfully. This unfortunate situation prevails because of the reason that the State has not undertaken any protective Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 156 of 2016 Page 5 of 41 easure to ensure the safety of these witnesses, commonly known as ‘witness protection’. (6) Over the last many years criminal justice system in this country has been witness to traumatic experience where witnesses turn hostile. This has been happening very frequently. There may be many causes for this sordid phenomena." Regarding position on the testimony of a hostile witness, in State vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450 Apex Court observed as under: “101…..if a witness becomes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the court shall not stand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bring home the truth. Criminal justice system cannot be overturned by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation. Further, Section 193 IPC imposes punishment for giving false evidence but is seldom invoked.” 9. A criminal trial is but a quest for truth. The nature of inquiry and evidence required will depend on the facts of each case. The presumption of innocence will have to be balanced with the rights of the victim, and above all the societal interest for preservation of the rule of law. Neither the accused nor the victim can be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances, so as to make it the theatre of the absurd. The presumption of innocence will have to be balanced with the rights of the victim, and above all the societal interest for preservation of the rule of law. Neither the accused nor the victim can be permitted to subvert a criminal trial by stating falsehood and resort to contrivances, so as to make it the theatre of the absurd. Dispensation of justice in a criminal trial is a serious matter and cannot be allowed to become a mockery by simply allowing prime prosecution witnesses to turn hostile as a ground for acquittal, as observed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374 and Mahila Vinod Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 ." In view of the above settled position of law, considering the consistency and cogency of the statement of PW 1 and also considering the fact that no major infirmity could be pointed out in his evidence, the hostility of other witnesses would not affect the testimony of PW-1, who has sustained injuries in the alleged incident. 28. It is correct that no motive has been alleged on the part of accused-appellants to commit the murder of deceased persons and causing injuries to others except that of the complainant/PW 1, but it is well established that if a case is based on direct evidence, the motive has no much significance. Clear proof of motive lends additional assurance to other evidence but the absence of motive does not lead to contrary conclusion, however in that case, other evidence has to be closely scrutinized. If positive evidence is clear and cogent, the question of motive is not important. However, this is relevant to lend assurance the other evidence. Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of crime. Moreover, failure to prove motive or absence of evidence on the point of motive, would not be fatal to the prosecution case when the other reliable evidence available on record, unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. Reference may be made to the case law pronounced in State of U.P. V Nawab Singh, 2005 SCC (Criminal). In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime. Reference may be made to the case law pronounced in State of U.P. V Nawab Singh, 2005 SCC (Criminal). In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime. In Shivji Genu Mohite V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55 , Supreme Court has held that in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye-witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance as held in Bikau Pandey & Ors. V. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 ; and Abu Thakir & Ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91 ). In the present case, considering the entire evidence on record, it is quite apparent that testimony of Anugrah Narayan Singh PW-1, who has sustained injuries in the same incident, is trustworthy and can not be disbelieved on account of motive. So far as the position of injured witness is concerned, in Mukesh and Anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2017 Cri.L.J. 4365, Apex Court, while considering the evidence of injured witness, taking into consideration several judgments of the Apex Court, observed that: "the evidence of injured witness is entitled to a greater weight and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be beyond reproach and reliable. Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to describe the evidence of injured witness. It is to be kept in mind that the evidentiary value of an injured witness carries great weight". Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to describe the evidence of injured witness. It is to be kept in mind that the evidentiary value of an injured witness carries great weight". In State of Maharashtra vs. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble reported in AIR 2007 SC 3042 , the Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of an eye witness, who is also an injured witness, cannot be doubted merely on the ground that he is inimical to the respondents and held in paragraph 29, which reads as follows:- "29. Each of the reasoning assigned by the High Court, in our opinion, is contrary to the well-settled legal principle. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, apart from being eye-witnesses, were injured witnesses. Their presence at the place of occurrence, therefore, cannot be doubted. Only because they were inimical to the respondents, the same by itself cannot be a ground to discard their evidences. Although in accepting the same, some amount of caution is required to be maintained." 29. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage, as his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 ; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ; and Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ]. 30. Applying the above stated position of law, in the present case, it may be seen that testimony of PW-1 has been consistent and cogent and no such fact could emerge in his cross-examination, so as to affect his credibility. 30. Applying the above stated position of law, in the present case, it may be seen that testimony of PW-1 has been consistent and cogent and no such fact could emerge in his cross-examination, so as to affect his credibility. His evidence is supported by medical evidence. He has lodged FIR without any undue delay, mentioning all important details of the incident. Except on the question of identity of assailants, his version stand corroborated by the above mentioned several witnesses, who turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused persons. 31. So far as accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh are concerned, regarding their involvement in the incident, the statement of PW-1 Anugrah Naryan Singh is cogent and consistent. His statement is supported by medical evidence. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but no such fact could come out so as to create any doubt regarding involvement of accused-appellants Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh. Rifle used in the incident was also snatched from accused Ravindra Singh at the spot. On the basis of evidence on record, prosecution has been able to prove involvement of appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh in the alleged incident. 32. However, so far as the involvement of appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh is concerned, as per the version of FIR, he was having lathi in his hand and made an exhortation to kill but it is not clear that in respect of which deceased or injured, alleged exhortation was made. Further, no one has suatined any such injury, which might have been caused by lathi. PW-1 Anugraah Narayan Singh has not attributed any specific role to him. In view of these facts, the involvement of appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh in the alleged incident, appears to be doubtful. There is no cogent and satisfactory evidence, that he shared common intention with appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh for committing murder of deceased persons and for causing injuries to injured persons. Another aspect of the matter is that he was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC, but there is no reliable evidence that he has shared common intention with the appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh for committing murder of the deceased persons and causing injuries to others. Another aspect of the matter is that he was convicted by the learned trial court under Section 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC, but there is no reliable evidence that he has shared common intention with the appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh for committing murder of the deceased persons and causing injuries to others. It is well settled that common intention and participation of the accused in commission of offence are the ingredients which should be satisfied before a person could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Considering the provisions of Section 34 of IPC, in Nand Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011)12 SCC 120 , it was held by the Apex Court as under: ..20. A bare reading of this section shows that the section could be dissected as follows : ''(a) Criminal act is done by several persons; (b) Such act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all; and (c) Each of such persons is liable for that Act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. In other words, these three ingredients would guide the court is determining whether an accused is liable to be convicted with the aid of Section 34. While first two are the acts which are attributable and have to be proved as actions of the accused, the third is the consequence. Once criminal act and common intentions are proved, then by fiction of law, criminal liability of having done that act by each person individually would arise. The criminal act, according to Section 34 IPC must be done by several persons. The emphasis in this part of the section is on the word ‘done'. It only flows from this that before a person can be convicted by following the provisions of Section 34, that person must have done something along with other persons. Some individual participation in the commission of the criminal act would be the requirement. The emphasis in this part of the section is on the word ‘done'. It only flows from this that before a person can be convicted by following the provisions of Section 34, that person must have done something along with other persons. Some individual participation in the commission of the criminal act would be the requirement. Every individual member of the entire group charged with the aid of Section 34 must, therefore, be a participant in the joint act which is the result of their combined activity'' In State of U.P. Vs Iftikhar Khan and Ors., (1973)1 SCC 512 , the principle has again been reiterated that before a court convicts a person under section 302 read with Section 34, it has to record a definite finding that the said person had prior concert with one or more other persons, armed or unarmed for committing the said offence. 33. In view of the above stated position of law, and considering the facts and evidence on record regarding the role of accused-appellant Rishabh Dev Singh, it appears to be doubtful that he shared common intention with appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh for committing murder of deceased persons and causing injuries to others. In view of all these facts, it does not appear safe to uphold the conviction of Rishabh Dev Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC. 34. As stated above, the statement of PW-1 Anugrah Narayan Singh and other evidence on record, so far it relates to appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh, appears to be reliable and trustworthy. No major infirmity or inconsistencies could be pointed out in that regard. 35. Considering the entire facts and taking cumulative effect of all the incriminating evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh is based on evidence and the trial court was fully justified in convicting them under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC. However, so far as appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh is concerned, it appears doubtful that he shared a common intention with appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh and thus, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC is liable to be set aside. 36. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC is liable to be set aside. 36. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh is affirmed. The conviction and sentence of appellant-accused Rishabh Dev Singh is set aside and he is acquitted of charge under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of IPC. He is stated to be on bail and thus, he need not surrender. Appellant-accused Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh are stated to be in jail, they shall serve out the remaining sentence.