JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Basudeo Rai @ Dhodbowa, the appellant, has challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of R.I for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 302 IPC, both dated 24.06.2010, passed against him in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2009. 2. Poraiyahat (Deodarn) P.S Case No. 224 of 2008 was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of Kunti Devi which was recorded at 5:30 AM on 06.12.2008 in village Ghadrwan, East Tola. The informant has alleged that Basudeo Rai @ Dhodhowa dragged her mother to his house and set her on fire. After the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted and the appellant has faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Geeta Devi. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 are closely related to Geeta Devi. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 are co-villagers and PW-8 is the investigating officer. 3. PW-4, the informant is the eye-witness. She has deposed in the Court that in the evening of 05.12.2008 she was at home sitting with her mother. At that time Basudeo Rai @ Dhodhowa who is her neighbour came there and asked her mother to come to his house, however, her mother refused to go with him. Thereafter, the accused started assaulting her and dragged her to his house. He sprinkled kerosene oil and set her on fire. She has further stated that previously the accused had burnt her house and for that a case was also registered against him. PW-1 is husband of Geeta Devi. At the time of the incident he was at Godda. He has stated hat about two years back a case was registered against the appellant for putting his house on fire and for that reason he was threatening him. PW-2, a co-villager has stated that PW-4 came to his house in the evening of 05. 12.2008 at about 07:15 PM and told him that the appellant was assaulting her mother. He has seen the dead body of Geeta Devi and said in the Court that the appellant has put her on fire. PW-3 is a witness to the inquest report. He has also put his signature on the fardbeyan and in the Court he has identified his signature on these documents. He has seen the dead body of Geeta Devi and said in the Court that the appellant has put her on fire. PW-3 is a witness to the inquest report. He has also put his signature on the fardbeyan and in the Court he has identified his signature on these documents. PW-5 is another daughter of Geeta Devi but at the time of the incident she was in her marital home. She has stated in her cross-examination that next day of the occurrence when she came to the house of her parents her sister told her that the appellant has killed her mother. PW-6, another co-villager, has also stated that the appellant had assaulted Geeta Devi, poured kerosen oil on her and put her on fire. PW-8, the investigating officer has inspected he place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of the co-villagers. H has prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Geeta Devi for post-mortem examination. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not find any sign of dragging; any burn marks in the room in which the appellant had set Geeta Devi on fire and; he has not found any kerosne oil or match box in the room. He has further stated that Basudeo Rai @ Dhodhowa is an accused in Poraiyahat (Deodarn) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2007 which was registered under sections 341, 323 and 436 IPC however, he has not verified who has filed this case. 4. In a criminal trial, the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness and there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the basis of sole testimony of an eye-witness. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses is required in any case for the proof of any fact. In "Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar' reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court can convict an accused on the basis of evidence of a solitary eye-witness provided his credibility is not shaken by an adverse circumstance and at the same time the Court is convinced that he is a truthful witness. State of Bihar' reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court can convict an accused on the basis of evidence of a solitary eye-witness provided his credibility is not shaken by an adverse circumstance and at the same time the Court is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The import of section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the Court may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable and, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the edifice of section 134 is the time honored principle that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In “Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “even if the case against the accused hangs on the evidence of a single eye-witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man, although as a rule of prudence Courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affair". 5. PW-4, the informant is daughter of the deceased and she is the sole eye-witness in this case, but for the reason that he is intimately related to the deceased her testimony cannot be looked at with suspicion. In “Kapildeo Mandal Vs. State of Bihar" reported in (2008) 16 SCC 99, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that credibility of a witness cannot be judged merely on the basis of his close relation with the deceased. The trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses would indicate that the accused has set up a defense that on account of previous enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. For that reason also PW-4 cannot be called an interested witness. For a moment, even considering the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that PW-4 is an interested witness, all that is required is to keep in mind what has been observed by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Masalti vs. The State of U.P." reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 : "that when a criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence". The testimony of PW-4 is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses on material, aspects of the case. PW-l, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 have not seen the appellant assaulting Geeta Devi but they have supported the prosecution on point that Geeta Devi has died due to burning. They have stated that the informant informed them that Basudeo Rai Dhodhowa has killed her mother. PW-3 who is inquest witness has stated that his house is adjacent to the house of PW-l. PW-6 is also a next door neighbour who has reached the place of Occurrence on hearing hulla. In his cross-examination he has further affirmed that the informant had told him that the appellant has killed her mother. These witnesses ha not claimed that they have seen the appellant dragging, assaulting and putting Geeta Devi on fire, but in a village it is not uncommon that the villagers would not come forward to give direct evidence against a co-villager. The reasons may be many, however, non-examination of independent witnesses who were at home but did not claim to have seen the occurrence would not weaken the prosecution case if other evidences are found by the Court cogent, consistent and reliable. 6. The evidence of PW-4 is very clear. She has seen the appellant coming to her house and dragging her mother to his house. She doe not say in so many words that she has seen the appellant putting kerosene oil and setting her mother on fire but from her testimony and other evidences it is well proved that the appellant has killed Geeta Devi. In her cross-exanimation, PW-4 has stated that the appellant lives adjacent to her house and at the time of occurrence her father was at Godda. That may be the reason why the neighbours have not seen the appellant committing murder of Geeta Devi or may be due to fear friendship, indifference or any other reason they have not said so clearly, but they have stated that on hearing hulla when they had gone to the place of occurrence which is the house of the appellant found dead body of Geeta Devi in burnt condition. Of course, PW-2 has stated that dead body of Geeta Devi was found in the house of her husband but other witnesses have stated that dead body of Geeta Devi was found inside the house of the appellant. Of course, PW-2 has stated that dead body of Geeta Devi was found in the house of her husband but other witnesses have stated that dead body of Geeta Devi was found inside the house of the appellant. This is not unusual that a witness may make a stray statement during the trial and it is well accepted that such things would happen. In "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki" reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person" 7. The investigating officer has not found kerosene oil or a match box in the room in the house of the appellant in which dead body of Geeta Devi was found but his objective findings confirm that it was a room in the house of the appellant in which dead body of Geeta Devi was found. The defence has failed to show any animus on his part to falsely implicate the appellant in this case and the informant would also not shield the real culprit and implicate the appellant on account of previous enmity. On the other hand, to prove motive the prosecution has brought on record the case filed by the father of the informant against the appellant and in his evidence he has stated that the appellant was threatening him because he had filed a case against him. 8. However, in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C the appellant has not offered any explanation how dead body of Geeta Devi was found inside his house. 9. In “Pudhu Raja Vs. State” reported in (2012) 11 SCC 96 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; “17. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide, as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide, as to whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention or the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances ". 10. The prosecution has established a prima-facie case against the appellant in as much as PW-4 has remained unshaken during her cross-examination. Her evidence that the appellant came to her house, asked her mother to come along and when her mother refused he dragged her to his house have remained intact. The medical evidence has also corroborated the manner of occurrence as disclosed by PW-4. Dr. Anant Kumar Jha who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found thermal burn injury to the extent of 55% on Geeta Devi. He has observed sooty particles in trachea and larynx and found smell of kerosen from the dead body. The absence of any other injury on the dead body is explained by the evidence of the investigating officer who has stated In his cross-examination that due to burning there was no abrasion on the legs of Geeta Devi. 11. On such facts, an inference under section 106 of the Evidence Act has to be drawn against the appellant that he is the person who has committed murder of Geeta Devi. The prosecution has discharged its burden by leading evidence on the charge against the appellant under section 302 IPC and, therefore, the onus had shifted on the appellant to offer a plausible and acceptable explanation how dead body of Geeta Devi was found in his house. The prosecution has discharged its burden by leading evidence on the charge against the appellant under section 302 IPC and, therefore, the onus had shifted on the appellant to offer a plausible and acceptable explanation how dead body of Geeta Devi was found in his house. The failure of an accused to offer any explanation to an incriminating material put to him when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for his conviction, but his failure to offer a satisfactory explanation how a dead body has been found in his house would no doubt raise a grave doubt that he is the one who has committed murder of Geeta Devi. 12. In "State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram” reported In (2006) 12 SCC 254 } the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; "23………The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain………" 13. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain………" 13. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the appellant who has failed to discharge the burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act has rightly been convicted for committing murder of Geeta Devi. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) NO.711 of 2010 is dismissed. 15. Let the lower-Court records be sent to the Court concerned, forthwith. 16. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX