JUDGMENT : Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The sole accused has faced the trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his brother Hira Singh. 2. In Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2009, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The informant of this case is wife of the deceased. She is the only eye-witness who has seen the appellant assaulting her husband with Tangi. Vijay Ekka-PW-1, a neighbour, came to the house of the informant on hearing hulla and he has seen the informant snatching Tangi from the appellant. 4. The case of the prosecution is that there was land dispute between the appellant and his brother Hira Singh. In the evening of 22.11.2008, at about 7:00 p.m., after taking food he was sitting on his Verandah. At that time his wife was in the kitchen. The appellant came there and assaulted him with a Tangi. On hearing commotion his wife came out and snatched Tangi from the appellant. Thereafter the appellant fled away. He however went to the Chaukidar and told him that he has assaulted his brother and he wanted to surrender. 5. During the trial the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses; the informant is PW-9. 6. Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is material discrepancy in the statement of the informant in the court and what she has stated in her fardbeyan, particularly , on the manner of occurrence. He submits that the informant has stated in her fardbeyan that the appellant assaulted her husband indiscriminately with a Tangi however the medical evidence would disclose that only one sharp cutting injury was found on the neck of the deceased. He has further submitted that Tangi is a heavy weapon and unlike sword and Balua it is not categorized as a sharp cutting weapon. 7. The assault weapon was seized by the police from the place of occurrence. There was blood mark on Tangi and it was sent for forensic examination. The FSL report reveals that the blood found on Tangi was of human origin. However, on the nature of injury caused to the deceased there was no cross-examination of the doctor. 7. The assault weapon was seized by the police from the place of occurrence. There was blood mark on Tangi and it was sent for forensic examination. The FSL report reveals that the blood found on Tangi was of human origin. However, on the nature of injury caused to the deceased there was no cross-examination of the doctor. Both PW-1 and PW-9 have categorically stated that they have seen Tangi in the hand of the appellant and PW-9 has seen the appellant assaulting her husband. In his cross-examination the doctor has stated that the injury found on Hira Singh may be caused by sword or any sharp cutting weapon but we find that no suggestion was given to the doctor whether such injury can be caused by Tangi or not. Tangi is a heavy weapon with sharp edges and the extent of injury found on the neck of Hira Singh – 4” x 2”– sufficiently corroborates the case of the prosecution that the appellant has inflicted Tangi blow on the back of the neck of Hira Singh. 8. The conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of testimony of sole eye-witness if testimony of the solitary witness is found cogent, reliable and trustworthy. In “Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and others Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in “ (2006)11 SCC 323 ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that before conviction of an accused is recorded on the basis of testimony of a single witness the court must satisfy itself that testimony of such witness is of such sterling quality that it leaves no doubt about the complicity and involvement of the accused in the crime. In State of Maharashtra v. Dinesh reported in (2018) 15 SCC 161 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “8. In Joseph v. State of Kerala [ (2003) 1 SCC 465 ] , this Court has observed that where there is a sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of other material on record. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh [ (2002) 9 SCC 537 ], this Court has laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh [ (2002) 9 SCC 537 ], this Court has laid down that the testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. In Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2012) 4 SCC 257 ], this Court, after taking note of the aforementioned two judgments, observed that “the principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime”. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement (Seeman v. State [Seeman v. State, (2005) 11 SCC 142 ] ).” 9. The informant has deposed in the court that on 22.11.2008 she was at home. In the evening, at about 7:00 p.m., her husband had taken meal and was resting on the Verandah. In the meantime her brother-in-law, the appellant, came there and assaulted her husband with Tangi. She came out from the kitchen and snatched Tangi from him. The appellant thereafter fled away. She has stated that there was a dispute between her husband and brother-in-law regarding the landed properties. She has also stated that at the time of occurrence it was almost dark; she shares a common courtyard with her brother-in-law and; she has seen one injury on the back of the neck of her husband. The testimony of the informant who is an eyewitness is sufficiently corroborated by PW-1, who had reached house of the informant on hearing her hulla. 10. From cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-9, it would appear that they have firmly stood to their grounds and nothing material could be elicited by the defence from them. The testimony of the informant who is an eyewitness is sufficiently corroborated by PW-1, who had reached house of the informant on hearing her hulla. 10. From cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-9, it would appear that they have firmly stood to their grounds and nothing material could be elicited by the defence from them. The presence of PW-1 and PW-9 in their house in the evening of 22.11.2008 is quite natural; PW-1 is the next door neighbour. Their testimony is quite convincing and trustworthy. The delay of about 12 hours in sending information to the police regarding the incident is not fatal for the prosecution. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 6 k.m. and it was almost dark when the incident had happened. The appellant himself surrendered before the Chaukidar who had confined him in his house and therefore there is nothing unusual if information to the police was not sent the same night. 11. The Investigating Officer has stated that Sanha was lodged on receiving information about murder of Hira Singh and he has recorded fardbeyan of Mani Devi on 23.11.2008 at about 08:00 hours. The Chaukidar of the village Mangla Ahir produced the appellant before police. He told the police that the appellant had come to him on his own and told him that he has killed his brother and he wanted to go to the police. The Investigating Officer has prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem examination and prepared the seizure list of blood stained Tangi. The seizure list was signed by the accused and he has identified the Tangi and admitted before the Investigating Officer that, that was the Tangi with which he has assaulted his brother. The other prosecution witnesses-Vijay Ekka-PW-1, Rupeshwar Singh-PW-2, Etwa Gope-PW-3, Lilawati Devi-PW-5, Manmohan Singh PW-6, Tembo Oraon PW-7, Ravi Oraon PW-8, Sidhnath Singh PW-10 and Guru Charan Singh PW-11 are not eyewitnesses but they have corroborated the prosecution's case on other material aspects of the case. 12. Leaving aside confession of the appellant before the Chaukidar and his identifying the crime weapon, from the prosecution's evidence we find that presence of the appellant in the house of the informant at about 7:00 p.m. on 22.11.2008 and assault by him on Hira Singh are proved. 13. 12. Leaving aside confession of the appellant before the Chaukidar and his identifying the crime weapon, from the prosecution's evidence we find that presence of the appellant in the house of the informant at about 7:00 p.m. on 22.11.2008 and assault by him on Hira Singh are proved. 13. Now, the question is whether conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proper. 14. Dr. Sourav Prasad who has conducted the postmortem examination on 23.11.2008 has found on the neck of Hira Singh one sharp incised would –4” x 2”– extending from right sternomastoid muscle to right mastoid. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was antemortem in nature which was caused by a sharp cutting weapon and he has rendered an opinion that the cause of death was shock and haeomarrhage. There was a long standing land dispute between the appellant and his brother; the appellant has inflicted one Tangi blow on his brother; the injury was caused on the back of the neck; there was no repeated blow given by the appellant and; on repentance he has himself gone to the Chaukidar and expressed his desire to surrender before the police. All the time his conduct would reflect that he was a repentant man which is reflected in his statement before the Investigating Officer and, above all, he is a seizure memo witness also. Moreover, the doctor has not specifically stated that the injury caused to Hira Singh was sufficient to cause death in the normal course and he has also not rendered an opinion that the injury was such that in all probability it would have caused death. 15. In the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper and accordingly it is set aside. The injury on the neck of Hira Singh is grievous in nature – Clause “Eighthly” of section 320 IPC – and from extent of the injury it can be reasonably inferred that such injury was likely to cause death. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to RI for 10 years for the said offence. 16. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to RI for 10 years for the said offence. 16. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of the appellant, namely, Lilamber Singh under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2009 is set-aside. 17. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned APP states that the appellant, namely, Lilamber Singh has remained in custody for more than 10 years and 11 months. 18. Accordingly, the appellant, named-above, shall be set free forthwith, if not required in connection to any other criminal case. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 930 of 2013 is partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 20. Let lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 21. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court concerned through FAX.