ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The sole appellant has faced the trial on the charge under section 302/34 IPC for committing murder of Brihaspati Mahto. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1999, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I for life under section 302/34 IPC. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Madan Yadav, son of the deceased, recorded on 06.12.1998 at about 2:00 p.m. in his village, Dumri P.S. Case No. 105 of 1998 was registered against the appellant and his wife, namely, Ramani Devi. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and charge under section 302/34 IPC was framed against the appellant by an order dated 28.03.2000. During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses; wife of the deceased, namely, Tupli Devi is P.W.1 and his son, the informant, is P.W.2. 4. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Narain Rajak - P.W.3 and Mangar Rajak - P.W.4 did not supported the prosecution story and, therefore, they were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.6 who is the inquest witness has spoken about confessional statement of the accused before him, however, his testimony on this point has been excluded from consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. Dr. K. Kumar-P.W.5, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, has found the following injuries on Brihaspati Mahto: (i) lacerated wound over left temporal region 1” x ½”, bone deep. (ii) lacerated wound over posterior aspect of left temporal region 2” x 1” x 1”, bone deep. (iii) abrasion over right forearm 4” x 1”. (iv) abrasion over the abdominal flank 1” x ½”. 6. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was caused due to head injury. 7. Mr. Abhay Shankar Dayal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that: (i) the evidence of P.W. 2 is contradictory and thus not reliable, (ii) no independent witness has supported the prosecution’s case, (iii) the ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence in large parts, (iv) the defence evidence has not been properly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, particularly, in the light of the opinion rendered by the doctor during his cross-examination, and (v) the serious mistakes committed during the investigation and lacuna in the prosecution’s case have rendered conviction of the appellant under section 302/34 IPC unsustainable. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would finally submit that, at best, the case set-up by the prosecution against the appellant would fall under section 304 Part-II IPC and not under section 302 IPC. 9. In his fardbeyan, the informant who is son of the deceased, namely Brihaspati Mahto and who was accompanying his father on 05.12.1998 when they were going to the fields to bring the harvested paddy crops has stated that the distance between his village-Khudisar, tola-Gulidodi, is about 3 kilometers from the fields situated at village-Kamariabera. He alongwith his father had proceeded for the fields on bullock-cart and in the meantime his uncle and aunt both had also arrived there for forcibly collecting the paddy crops. The informant says that the appellant and his wife forcibly stopped them from removing the paddy crops, however, his father tried to lift the bundle of the paddy crops from the fields whereupon the appellant assaulted his father with tangi on his head. His injured father who had fallen on the ground asked him to leave the fields as he feared that the appellant would kill him also. Then, his aunt, namely, Ramani Devi asked her husband, the appellant, to assault him also whereafter the appellant chased him but somehow he could escape. He came home and informed his mother and co-villagers, namely, Mangar Rajak @ Mangar Baitha and Narain Rajak about the incident. Thereafter, they had gone to the fields where they found Brihaspati Mahto lying in unconscious condition. He was brought back home and given treatment by a local doctor, however, at about 2:30 p.m on the same day he died. 10. The informant has been examined in the court as P.W.2. In his examination-in-chief, he has narrated a similar story of the incident which has been recorded in his fardbeyan. He has spoken about presence of the appellant and his wife at the place of occurrence, his father objecting to the appellant forcibly removing the paddy crops from the fields, the appellant assaulting his father with tangi and his coming back home and informing his mother and co-villagers about assault by the appellant on his father. During his cross-examination, the informant has stood to his ground and nothing material could be elicited from him which could have created a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. During his cross-examination, the informant has stood to his ground and nothing material could be elicited from him which could have created a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. In his examination-in-chief, when the fardbeyan was read over to him in the court he has affirmed that it was correctly written. He, however, admits that Dr. Basudeo Singh who has treated his father in the night of 05.12.1998 at home did not put any bandage on him. He has also admitted that he did not disclose the name of the doctor before the police who had treated his father. 11. The other prosecution witnesses – P.W3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 – are formal witnesses. P.W.3 and P.W 4 have turned hostile, however, they are being formal witnesses in our opinion it would not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case even if they have not supported the prosecution story. P.W.4 has, however, admitted that he has seen Brihaspati Mahto in injured condition in the fields where paddy crops were harvested. P.W.1 is not an eye-witness but she has supported the prosecution’s case in large parts. P.W.7 is the investigating officer who has prepared the inquest report, examined the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the witnesses. 12. The accused-appellant has set-up a defence that while trying to hold the rope which was thrown by his son, Brihaspati Mahto fell from the bullock-cart and sustained injuries. He was brought home by his son and the appellant where he was treated, however, finally he succumbed to the injures. In support of this stand, the accused-appellant has examined one witness, namely, Girdhari Malhar, who has deposed on the similar lines. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered his evidence and held that it was not reliable for two reasons ; (i) he was a chance witness and (ii) the doctor’s evidence does not support the defence version. 13. During cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, a suggestion was given to them by the defence that Brihaspati Mahto fell from the bullock-cart and sustained injuries on account of which he has died. These witnesses have denied the suggestion and they have reiterated that Brihaspati Mahto has sustained tangi blows given by the appellant from the back portion of the tangi. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is his son. These witnesses have denied the suggestion and they have reiterated that Brihaspati Mahto has sustained tangi blows given by the appellant from the back portion of the tangi. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is his son. Though, P.W.1 is not an eye-witness, she has supported the prosecution’s story on material aspects. She has deposed that her son came home running and informed her about the appellant assaulting his father. She along with co-villagers have gone to the fields and found her husband lying in the injured condition. He was brought home where he was treated by a local doctor. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed that information about the incident could not be given to the police-station the same day because it is at a far away place. It has come on record that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police-station is about 37 kilometers. Infact, in the fardbeyan itself the informant has stated that due to absence of transportation immediate information about the incident was not given to the police. The doctor’s evidence, who has found two lacerated head injuries and two abrasions ; one over right forearm and another over abdominal flank of Brihaspati Mahto, supports the prosecution case that the appellant has assaulted him from the back portion of the tangi. 14. A contention is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the informant has not stated that the appellant has given repeated blows on Brihaspati Mahto rather from his testimony it would appear that he has given just one blow to him, however, the doctor has found as many as four injuries on him. We find that in the fardbeyan the informant has stated that when his father tried to remove the paddy crops the appellant has assaulted him on his head with the tangi and at the end of his fardbeyan the informant has also stated that the appellant has assaulted his father on his head and other parts of his body. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the appellant has assaulted his father on his head and his hands. On such facts, we do not find any contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 15. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the appellant has assaulted his father on his head and his hands. On such facts, we do not find any contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 15. By now it is largely accepted that conviction of an accused can be based on testimony of a solitary witness and it is not necessary to seek corroboration to the evidence of a sole eye-witness. The only requirement in law is that the testimony of solitary witness should be of such sterling quality that it leaves no manner of doubt on complicity of the accused in the crime. A little inconsistency or embellishment or exaggeration in evidence of an eye-witness which can be explained would not render his testimony unreliable. In “Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam” reported in (1993) 3 SCC 282 [: 1993(2) PLJR (SC) 140], the Supreme Court has held 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.” 16. From the prosecution’s case and the stand taken by the defence, it cannot be denied that the informant is a competent witness. His presence at the place of the occurrence and at the time of the occurrence is admitted by the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found his testimony trustworthy and reliable. From the prosecution’s case and the stand taken by the defence, it cannot be denied that the informant is a competent witness. His presence at the place of the occurrence and at the time of the occurrence is admitted by the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found his testimony trustworthy and reliable. From narration of the facts and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we also find that the informant a reliable and trustworthy witness. The lapses committed by the investigating officer during the investigation would not result in failure of the prosecution’s case and on the basis of the testimony of P.W.2, which is sufficiently corroborated by other evidences, conviction of the appellant can be recorded for murder of Brihaspati Mahto. 17. We find that the prosecution has established that Brihaspati Mahto has died due to assault by the appellant with tangi and tangi is a dangerous weapon is not disputed by the defence. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to submit that tangi is usually carried by the villagers, however, we find that no such suggestion was given to the prosecution witnesses. The doctor has rendered an opinion that death has been caused due to head injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The doctor has also stated that the injury nos. 1 and 2 cannot be caused by a single blow. These facts would disclose the intention of the appellant to cause death. It was not a sudden fight which has started at the spur of the moment. During his cross-examination, the informant has stated that the appellant was present at the fields with tangi from before. May be initially the appellant had no intention to murder Brihaspati Mahto, but such intention can develop at the spur of the moment and intention of an accused can be gathered from his words and conduct, manner of the occurrence, nature of the weapon held by him and nature of the injuries caused by him. Even though he has not assaulted Brishaspati Mahto from the sharp side of tangi, the case of the appellant can fall under section 304 IPC; Part-I or Part-II, only when it is found that his act brings the case under one of the exceptions of section 300 IPC. Even though he has not assaulted Brishaspati Mahto from the sharp side of tangi, the case of the appellant can fall under section 304 IPC; Part-I or Part-II, only when it is found that his act brings the case under one of the exceptions of section 300 IPC. The facts which have come on record do not bring the case of the appellant within one of the exceptions under section 300 IPC and, above all, the doctor’s evidence that the head injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course would clearly establish that the appellant had knowledge as envisaged under clause fourthly of section 300 IPC that assault by him on Brihaspati Mahto would be so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, would cause death or such bodily injury as would be likely to cause death. 18. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, we find no merit in this criminal appeal and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 378 of 2001 is dismissed. 19. The appellant is on bail and, therefore, his bail-bonds are cancelled. 20. The appellant shall surrender in the court below to serve the remaining sentence. 21. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 22. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.