JUDGEMENT : Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Sessions Trial Case No. 203 of 2011, Gulab Chandra Diggi, Chalu Tiu and Tantu Diggi were put on trial but the other two accused persons were acquitted by the trial Judge. The appellant has suffered conviction and sentence of R.I for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The informant of this case is wife of Manki Diggi, the deceased. 3. Anita Diggi who is daughter of the informant is an eye-witness. 4. During the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses; the informant is P.W.3. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has acquitted Gulab Chandra Diggi on the ground that no evidence was led by the prosecution on his complicity in the crime and even P.W.1 has not spoken a word about him. Chalu Tiu was also acquitted of the charges framed against him on the ground that his complicity in the occurrence that he caught hold of wife of Sirka Soy is not established in as much as she was not examined as a witness during the trial. 6. Mr. R. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and conviction of the appellant is primarily based on testimony of the solitary eye-witness who is daughter of the deceased and other two material witnesses are also related to the deceased and, therefore, without sufficient corroboration by independent evidence conviction of the appellant on the basis of testimony of the sole eye-witness is not proper. 7. The case of the prosecution is that in the afternoon of 28.01.2011 Manki Diggi had gone for grazing the cattle. His daughter, namely, Anita Diggi came back home from school and after taking meal had gone to the field for grazing goats. There she has seen Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi and Chalu Tiu assaulting her father with “danda”. The wife of Sirka Soy tried to save her father but Chalu Tiu caught hold of her and Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi continued to assault her father. She came running home and informed her sister and the mother. They had gone to the field and found Manki Diggi lying injured in the field. He was brought to P.H.C, Sonua for treatment but in course of treatment he succumbed to the injury. 8. She came running home and informed her sister and the mother. They had gone to the field and found Manki Diggi lying injured in the field. He was brought to P.H.C, Sonua for treatment but in course of treatment he succumbed to the injury. 8. In her examination-in-chief P.W.1 has narrated what she had seen in the afternoon of 28.01.2011. Her testimony is in line with the fardbeyan of her mother which was recorded on 28.01.2011. She has deposed in the Court that she has seen Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi and Chalu Tiu assaulting her father with “danda”; her father suffered injuries on his head and face; on her information her mother and sister came in the field and; with the help of the villagers her father was taken to the health center. She was cross-examined at length but she has firmly stood to her grounds and nothing material could be elicited from her by the defence. P.W.2 is another daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is his wife. They are not the eye-witnesses but they have seen Manki Diggi in injured condition in the field. Both have spoken about enmity between Manki Diggi and the father of Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi. They have stated that P.W.1 on seeing the accused persons assaulting her father came home and informed them. As P.W.1 has deposed similar facts in the case, evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not hearsay rather substantive evidence. We do not find any contradiction in the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The testimony of P.W.1 is sufficiently corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.3 as well and the medical evidence has also supported P.W.1 on the manner of occurrence as narrated by her in the Court. In our opinion, she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. 9. 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 “Prithipal Singh and Others Vs. A little inconsistency or embellishment or exaggeration in evidence of an eye-witness which can be explained would not render his testimony unreliable. In “Prithipal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab” reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. It has been held that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness. 10. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are hearsay witnesses and P.W.7 is the investigating officer of this case. P.W.7 has seized the blood-stained “danda” from the place of occurrence and it was sent for chemical examination. The FSL report shows that the blood-stain found on “danda” was of human origin. 11. Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava-P.W.6 has conducted the post-mortem examination on 29.01.2011 and found the following injuries on Manki Diggi : (I) Lacerated wound on forehead 4” x 1” x bone deep, (ii) lacerated wound on lower lip and chin 2” x 1” bone deep. 12. In the opinion of the doctor time elapsed since death was between 6 hours to 36 hours. In this context, it needs to be remembered that Manki Diggi was assaulted by the accused persons in the afternoon of 28.01.2011 and he was taken to P.H.C., Sonua where he died in the course of treatment on the same day. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at about 18:00 hrs. on 28.01.2011 and a First Information Report was lodged at 23:00 hrs. the same day. In these facts, in our opinion, the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution story that Manki Diggi has died homicidal death on 28.01.2011. 13. The above being the state of evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and assault by him on Manki Diggi. 14. Now, the question is whether the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. There was a long standing land dispute between Manki Diggi and father of the appellant. The weapon of assault was a “danda” (tree branch) of about 42 inch in length; it is recorded in the FSL report. 14. Now, the question is whether the appellant is liable to be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. There was a long standing land dispute between Manki Diggi and father of the appellant. The weapon of assault was a “danda” (tree branch) of about 42 inch in length; it is recorded in the FSL report. By no stretch of imagination the “danda” used in the occurrence can be said to be a weapon and, that too, a dangerous weapon. In the opinion of the doctor the lacerated wound found on the forehead of Manki Diggi can be caused by lathi, however, during his cross-examination he says that it can be caused by a fall from a height. Another wound on Manki Diggi was also a lacerated wound on the lower part of his face. The doctor has found that the ribs were intact and both chambers of the heart were empty. These findings would show that Manki Diggi has not suffered any other blow on his person and from these facts it cannot be inferred that the appellant intended to cause death of Manki Diggi. Another important feature of the case is that no one has seen what had triggered the incident. P.W.1 has seen the appellant assaulting her father but beyond this she does not say anything in her testimony. And, above all, P.W.6 has rendered an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage. 16. 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 he is liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder [refer,“Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana” reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635 ]. From the facts proved by the prosecution, it is found that the act of the appellant is punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 21.05.2013 and the order of sentence dated 22.05.2013 of R.I for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.20,000/-passed against the appellant, namely, Tantu Diggi @ Ratanlal Diggi by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 203 of 2011 are set-aside. 18. 18. The appellant above-named is convicted and sentenced to R.I for 7 years under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 19. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P states that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 9 years and 5 months. 20. Therefore, the appellant above-named shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other case. 21. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 115 of 2014 is partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 22. Let the lower-court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 23. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.