JUDGMENT Oswal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in file No. 33/Challan, titled 'State of J&K Vs. Deepak Singh and others' whereby the learned trial vide judgment dated 30.12.2013 has convicted the appellant for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC and acquitted the other accused and vide order dated 31.12.2013 has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for commission of offence under Section 452 RPC. 2. The appeal has been filed primarily on the ground that the learned trial court while convicting the appellant has not rightly appreciated the evidence. 3. Mr. R. K. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of statement of one witness i.e. PW-Bhim Singh, whose testimony was full of contradictions and contrary to the case projected by the prosecution. He further laid stress upon the fact that PW-Bhim Singh denied to have made any application for registration of FIR, particularly when on the basis of this application duly signed by him, FIR in question was registered. He also laid stress on the fact that PW-Bhim Singh has attributed the disclosure statement to the appellant whereas the appellant had never made disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence. He further argued that the appellant could not have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 RPC, particularly when he was charged for commission of offence under Section 302/34 RPC and further that when other accused have been acquitted and act of committing the murder of the deceased has not been attributed to the appellant, he could not have been convicted by the learned trial court for commission of offence under section 302 RPC. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case titled 'Baikunth Nath Chowdhary Vs. State of Orissa' reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2337. 4. Per contra, Mr. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case titled 'Baikunth Nath Chowdhary Vs. State of Orissa' reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2337. 4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently argued that PW-Bhim Singh has categorically proved that it was the appellant who caught hold of the deceased when he was murdered and further that there appears to be no reason as to why the old man of 80 years of age would wrongly implicate the appellant for commission of offence of murder. He argued that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The prosecution story is that on 25.05.2008 the complainant-Bhim Singh lodged a written report at Police Post Sandwan wherein it was mentioned that his nephew Sain Singh, who was doing a private job after his retirement from the Army returned to his home in the night and was resting in his room after having dinner. At about 10.15 PM accused Sonu Singh opened the gate and entered the house and called Sain Singh at the gate on the pretext of some work. Sain Singh accompanied Sonu and before he could reach the gate, Surjit Singh and Deepak Singh both sons of Janak Singh who were hiding there, caught hold of Sain Singh and inflicted injuries upon him with Kirch as a result of which Sain Singh fell on the ground and the accused ran away. He along with his son Uttam Singh took the injured to the Govt. Medical College Hospital, Jammu. All the above mentioned accused were having enmity with Sain Singh regarding a tender of Municipal Committee and because of this enmity, Sain Singh was attacked. After receipt of this written application on 25.05.2008, at 11.15 PM, the entry of the said report was made vide No. 23 dated 25.05.2008. On the basis of this report No. 23 dated 25.05.2008 of Police Post Sandwan, FIR No. 136/2008 for commission of offences under Section 448, 307, 34 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act was registered against the appellant and other accused on 25.05.2008. Note:- It seems that the date of FIR has been wrongly mentioned as 25.05.2008 particularly when it is mentioned in the FIR that information was received at Police Station on 26.05.2008 at 5.30 AM. Note:- It seems that the date of FIR has been wrongly mentioned as 25.05.2008 particularly when it is mentioned in the FIR that information was received at Police Station on 26.05.2008 at 5.30 AM. Investigation of the said FIR was handed over to Naresh Kumar Sharma, In-charge, Police Post Sandwan who proceeded on spot but site plan could not be prepared because of darkness. He posted two constables on spot to preserve the scene. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer proceeded to GMC, Jammu to record the statement of the injured, but before he could record his statement, the injured succumbed to his injuries in the operation theatre at 5.40 AM. The dead body was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and after the post mortem, the same was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased for performing his last rites. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, obtained report of post mortem as well as the report of the FSL and also arrested the accused persons. During the investigation, Rajesh Kumar alias Bhalla was also found to be involved and was arrested. The disclosure statement of the accused-Deepak Singh was recorded and pursuant to the disclosure statement, Kirch was recovered. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer established the commission of offences under Section 302, 448, 34 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act by the accused and produced the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate on 04.08.2008. The challan was committed to the court of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who later on assigned the charge-sheet to Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and thereafter the challan was transferred to the learned trial court. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Section 302, 448, 34 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act on 12.12.2009 and as the accused did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties and to arrive at the conclusion whether the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence or not, it is necessary to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the evidence led by the prosecution. 8. PW-1 Bhim Singh has deposed that he knew the accused persons and the deceased, Sain Singh was his nephew. 8. PW-1 Bhim Singh has deposed that he knew the accused persons and the deceased, Sain Singh was his nephew. They used to reside separately in the same house and there was common courtyard. After retirement from the Army, the deceased-Sain Singh was working in a banquet hall. On 25.05.2008, at around 9.30 PM, the deceased came from banquet hall and after having dinner went to his room. Thereafter, at around quarter to ten, the accused Sonu came to the deceased. The deceased's daughter-Monika was studying in the veranda. AccusedSonu enquired from Monika about the deceased and she told him that the deceased was inside the room. Thereafter, the accused-Sonu took the deceased outside from his room. The deceased was having only towel on his body. He went towards the gate of the house. After five minutes, the deceased called Uttam Singh. He (witness) also heard and he along with his son went towards the gate. The accused-Sonu had caught the deceased from behind and he saw Deepak and Surjeet punching the deceased. Accused ran away after seeing him. The deceased had told him that the accused had assaulted him. He gave a report regarding the incident in the Police Post Pouni Chak. The deceased was taken to hospital where he was operated upon and one staff member brought the lung of the deceased and told him that there is deep injury in the lung of the deceased as a result of which he had died. The deceased died at 4.45 AM on 26.05.2008 due to injuries. The Police seized the blood stained clay and also prepared the site plan. The Police also showed him the kirch and he was told that the deceased was assaulted by this kirch. He identified the kirch. The seizure memo of the kirch was prepared and the contents of the seizure memo are true (ExTP-1). He identified his signatures on the disclosure memo but denied the contents of the same and likewise he identified the signatures on the application whereby a request was made for investigation but contents were denied. His signatures were marked as BS and BS1). He admitted the contents of receipt of dead body (ExTBS-1). He identified his signatures on the seizure memo of clothes, seizure memo of blood stained clay. He also admitted his signatures on the statement recorded under section 164-A CrPC that was marked as ExT-P1/4. His signatures were marked as BS and BS1). He admitted the contents of receipt of dead body (ExTBS-1). He identified his signatures on the seizure memo of clothes, seizure memo of blood stained clay. He also admitted his signatures on the statement recorded under section 164-A CrPC that was marked as ExT-P1/4. During cross-examination, he stated that he was illiterate. His statement was recorded by the Police on 26.05.2008. His signatures were obtained in the Police Station during investigation but the Police had not given those documents to him during investigation. This is correct that he lodged a report with Police Post, Pouni Chak. His statement was recorded by the Police of Police Post, Sandhwan. He had lodged the report with Police Post, Pouni Chak at the time, when they were taking the injured to hospital for treatment. The deceased was shifted to the hospital in the car of Capt. Tara Singh that was driven by his son. PWUttam Singh also accompanied them. They rushed to Jammu after lodging the report. He did not lodge any written report. He was accompanied by Incharge Police Post, Sandhwan for recording statement under section 164-A Cr.PC. He does not remember as to whether in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and 161 Cr.PC & 161 Cr.P.C he had mentioned that the deceased had told him that accused had assaulted him. He was read over the statement made by him recorded under section 161 Cr.PC and 164-A CrPC, but it was not mentioned in that. In the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, it has been wrongly mentioned that Sonu and Surjeet had caught hold of the deceased. He does not remember as to whether he had complained against Rajesh Kumar @ Bhalla or not. It was wrongly mentioned in his written report that the deceased had taken liquor. He was shown the weapon of offence on the third day of occurrence and accused Sonu had made a disclosure statement with respect to concealing of kirch and no other accused had made disclosure statement in his presence. He denied the contents of the disclosure memo dated 05.06.2008 made by accused-Deepak Singh. He does not know as to whether he had stated anything about kirch in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. In his statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it was found that there was no mention of kirch. He denied the contents of the disclosure memo dated 05.06.2008 made by accused-Deepak Singh. He does not know as to whether he had stated anything about kirch in his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. In his statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C, it was found that there was no mention of kirch. It was wrongly recorded in his statement under section 164-A CrPC that the accused had come to his house at 10.15 PM whereas the accused had come at 9.30 PM. The Police has not seized the towel with which the deceased had wrapped his body. In cross-examination, he further stated that it was wrong that he got report written from someone. He cannot say as to who had lodged the initial report. He admitted his signatures on the report in Hindi. It is true that the accused persons nurtured a grudge against the deceased due to Municipal contract as the deceased was insisting for open bid but this fact has not been mentioned in his statement before the court. He was first to reach on spot when the deceased called Uttam Singh. The occurrence took place inside the gate. 9. PW-2 Uttam Singh stated that the deceased-Sain Singh was his cousin who was putting up in the adjoining house and they had a common compound. On 25.05.2008 at about 10 PM, he saw accused Sonu entering into the room of deceased as he used to visit the deceased earlier as well. After 5/10 minutes, he heard noise and the crises 'Mar Gaye, Mar Gaye'. His father rushed towards the gate and he also rushed out. His father told him that accused Sonu was assaulting the deceased. He chased accused Sonu but did not see any one on spot. In the way the deceased told him that he was stabbed by accused Sonu. The deceased was operated upon but he died on the next morning at about 6 AM. The Police did not record his statement. He was declared hostile. During cross examination, he stated that it was wrong that he had seen the accused persons along with Sonu on sport. The seizure memo of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in his presence (ExtP-2). He also admitted the contents of the memo of receipt of the dead body  (ExtP-1/1) and also seizure memo of the hair of the deceased (ExtP1/2). The seizure memo of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in his presence (ExtP-2). He also admitted the contents of the memo of receipt of the dead body  (ExtP-1/1) and also seizure memo of the hair of the deceased (ExtP1/2). The disclosure memo of accused Deepak Singh was not signed by him but it contains his name and particulars. The seizure memo of the weapon of offence (ExtP-1) bears his signatures and also he admitted its contents to be correct (ExtP-1). He further admitted the contents of disclosure statement of accused Deepak Singh and identified his signatures (ExtP-2/2). He also admitted the supurdnama of stamp. His father lodged report with the Police and the wife of deceased, namely, Nina Devi was also accompanying the injured when deceased was being shifted. The daughter of the deceased Monika was studying in the veranda and she chased accused Sonu upto 500 meters. During cross examination, he stated that it was wrongly written in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he heard the cries of his brother Sain Singh emanating from the gate and when he rushed towards the gate, deceased was crying that he had been assaulted by accused Deepak Singh and Surjit Singh as was suggested. It was also wrong that when he reached near the gate, he saw four persons fleeing away. The deceased told him that he was stabbed by Sonu while going to hospital but the same is not mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It was wrongly written in the seizure memo (ExPW-1) that the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of accused Deepak Singh, however, it was recovered at the instance of accused Sonu. The disclosure memo (ExtP-2/2) is also not correct. 10. PW-3 Nina Devi (wife of the deceased) stated that her husband was an ex-serviceman and had taken up private job at Lakshmi Palace. On 25.05.2008 at about 10.30 PM she was arranging the washed clothes and her husband was on the bed along with her younger daughter aged two years. Her elder daughter Monika was studying in 12th Class and she was reading in the verenda at that time. The accused Sonu came in and asked her daughter about the deceased and on being told that he was inside, accused went inside and started talking to the deceased. Her elder daughter Monika was studying in 12th Class and she was reading in the verenda at that time. The accused Sonu came in and asked her daughter about the deceased and on being told that he was inside, accused went inside and started talking to the deceased. The accused took the deceased out on the pretext of some private conversation. Her husband called his brother, Uttam Singh to save him and on this Uttam Singh, his wife, she and her daughter rushed out towards the deceased who was found lying inside the gate. The accused had fled away finding them approaching. They shifted the deceased to Bakshi Nagar Hospital in the vehicle of Capt. Tara Singh which was driven by his son Karan Singh. In the way the deceased told her the names of the accused persons. The deceased was operated upon but could not talk when he was brought out from the operation theatre and breathed his last at 5 AM. The Police came after the funeral and enquired from her and other family members. She made the statement before the Magistrate also. The witness admitted the contents of her statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and identified her signatures thereupon (ExtP-3). During cross examination, she stated that the police recorded her statement about 10-12 days after the incident and thereafter she was brought before the Magistrate. She was examined in the court on 11.10.2010 and police had also recorded her statement only once and she has no knowledge of any other statement attributed to her. She was not furnished the copies of her statement under section 161 Cr.PC or 164-A CrPC by the Police. She was accompanying the deceased to the hospital and PW Bhim Singh was also with them. She had narrated in her statement under section 164-A Cr.P.C. that the deceased told the names of the accused on the way to the hospital but it was not recorded in her statement. It was true that her daughter was studying in the room and not in the verenda before the occurrence. The deceased was brought in from the gate in injured condition and was then taken to GMC after making him to wear clothes but before that deceased was wearing a towel only. It was true that her daughter was studying in the room and not in the verenda before the occurrence. The deceased was brought in from the gate in injured condition and was then taken to GMC after making him to wear clothes but before that deceased was wearing a towel only. During cross examination by the counsel for the appellant, he stated that it was true that the deceased had taken parking contract and accused Sonu used to collect money and hand over the same to the deceased. There was no quarrel between accused and the deceased before the occurrence. PW Uttam Singh reached on spot first of all followed by PW Bhim Singh. 11. PW-4 Monika Chib (daughter of the deceased) deposed that on 25.05.2008 at around 10.15 PM, she was studying in the veranda of her house. The accused Sonu came in and asked about her father. On being told, her father was in the bed room, the said accused went inside and after a little while, they came out and her father was wearing a towel at that time. The accused Sonu was following her father and they proceeded towards the gate. After some time her father cried for help and called her uncle Uttam Singh. Her uncle and grandfather Bhim Singh rushed towards the gate and she also followed them. She saw accused Deepak and Surjit and Sonu fleeing from the spot and her uncle-Uttam Singh and grandfather followed them. Afterwards her cousin Karan Singh also came on spot and her uncle-Uttam Singh and grandfather lifted her father from inside the gate and shifted to the hospital. In the morning she got the sad news of the death of her father. Her statement under section 164-A CrPC was recorded and she identified her signatures (ExT-MC). During cross examination, she stated that the accused Sonu used to visit them earlier also prior to the occurrence since her father had taken a contract of parking at Bus Stand and accused was engaged there and latter used to visit them for paying the money collected by him. The accused had no quarrel with her father when he went inside their house. She did not see any weapon in the hands of the accused on the date of occurrence. He might have hidden the same. The accused had no quarrel with her father when he went inside their house. She did not see any weapon in the hands of the accused on the date of occurrence. He might have hidden the same. She was told by her uncle PW Uttam Singh that he saw all the three accused fleeing and she made the statement on that basis. 12. PW-5 Chandan Singh (brother in law of the deceased) was declared hostile. During cross examination, he admitted the memo of receipt of dead body (ExTP-1/1) but he denied the contents of the seizure memo of hair strands of the deceased, clothes of the deceased and blood stained mixture of concrete but indentified his signatures thereupon. 13. PW-8 Ram Parkash stated that on 29.05.2008, he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Jammu. He stated that he resealed four packets and issued certificate to the Director FSL and authorized him to open those seals. He proved the certificate (ExTP-8). During cross examination, he stated that he was not aware of the contents of the packets. 14. PW-9 Karan Singh stated that he took the injured in his car to GMC, Bakshi Nagar and wife of the deceased, Neena Devi and PW Uttam Singh accompanied him. He was not aware as to how he was injured, neither he enquired of the same. In cross examination, he stated that he was not informed by any one on the board en-route that the accused had inflicted injury upon the deceased and the deceased Sain Singh also did not tell any of them about this fact. 15. PW-10 Mool Raj Scientific Officer stated that he received four sealed packets in this case marked as A, B, C and D and were examined for the presence of origin and groups of blood. He proved the certificate (ExTP-10/1). 16. PW-11 Sangeeta Choudhary has stated that she conducted the post mortem of deceased and in her opinion the death in the case was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to incised punctured wound in the abdomen caused by sharp edged weapon. She proved post mortem report (ExT P11). He proved the certificate (ExTP-10/1). 16. PW-11 Sangeeta Choudhary has stated that she conducted the post mortem of deceased and in her opinion the death in the case was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to incised punctured wound in the abdomen caused by sharp edged weapon. She proved post mortem report (ExT P11). She further stated that she also gave her opinion with regard to the alleged weapon of offence i.e. kirch sealed with 5 intact seals, shown to her by the Police and as per certificate injuries mentioned in the post mortem report could be caused by the said weapon (ExT-P11). She proved her certificate on the file (Ext P11/2) and she identified the weapon of offence shown to her after breaking open the seals. She also proved her signatures on the ward report (ExtP/3). During cross examination, she stated that Ext P11/3 is not in her hand but she had only signed the same. As per ExT P11/3 the deceased was under alcoholic sedation at the time he was brought to the surgical ward. The ward report is always annexed with the post mortem report to find out as to what treatment including surgical procedure was given to the deceased. She further stated that the deceased as per ward report was having only one stab injury on abdomen but as per post mortem report the deceased had received six injuries out of which five injuries were surgical. 17. PW-12 Naresh Sharma, Sub Inspector stated that he was posted as Incharge Police Post Sandwan on 25.05.2008. He further stated that he carried out the initial investigation of FIR No. 136/2008. During the intervening night of 25/26 of May, 2008, complainant Bhim Singh lodged a written report at Police Post at about 11.45 PM. The accused had attacked and injured critically his nephew Sain Singh. He recorded the report No. 23 and sent a docket to Police Station, Domana for registration of FIR. He proved the contents of the copy of the report cum docket on the file (ExT P 12). He reached on spot but by that time injured was already removed to the hospital. It was dark, so he left two constables on spot for preserving the place of occurrence and then proceeded to the GMC. He proved the contents of the copy of the report cum docket on the file (ExT P 12). He reached on spot but by that time injured was already removed to the hospital. It was dark, so he left two constables on spot for preserving the place of occurrence and then proceeded to the GMC. He reached at the hospital at about 1.30 PM but in morning at about 5.30 AM doctors informed that injured had succumbed to injuries. He took the dead body into his possession for post mortem vide seizure memo ExT P2 and wrote a docket to CMO for conducting the post mortem. After post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the legal heirs and receipt was obtained (ExT P1/1). He seized the clothes of the deceased vide seizure memo on record (ExT P12/1). He prepared the seizure memo of human hair which were found on the shirt of the deceased separately. He seized the blood stained concrete from the spot and also seized the plain clay. He arrested the accused Surjit Singh on the same evening at about 8 PM who disclosed that parking contract was allotted every month by the Municipality and deceased and accused had been trying to get that contract. The accused Deepak Singh disclosed during interrogation in custody that he had hidden the weapon used for the commission of crime in Chowhala Nallah amongst the bushes which he could get recovered, so he prepared disclosure memo. The accused was taken on spot in custody and PW Bhim Singh and Uttam Singh also accompanied him. The accused got the weapon recovered which was seized on spot. He prepared site plan of the place of recovery which is on the file. The weapon of offence was sealed and stamped on spot and it was got resealed from Magistrate. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC and as per his investigation, accused had committed offences punishable under sections 302, 448, 109 and 34 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act. He received information (ExT P12) at 23.45 hours on 25.08.2008 and it was correct that information was sent to Police Station on 26.05.2008 at 5.30 AM. It was true that PW Bhim Singh lodged a written report (ExT P12). He received information (ExT P12) at 23.45 hours on 25.08.2008 and it was correct that information was sent to Police Station on 26.05.2008 at 5.30 AM. It was true that PW Bhim Singh lodged a written report (ExT P12). During cross examination, he stated that as per his investigation deceased was wearing underwear and had wrapped a towel and was not wearing any other cloth at the time of occurrence. However, the towel was neither seized nor was handed over to Police. He had not enquired from any of the witness as to whether deceased was made to wear clothes immediately after the occurrence and none of the witnesses had deposed about the same. He recorded the statement of PW Nina Devi under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 26.05.2008 and it was correct that she had not named accused Deepak Singh, Surjit Singh and Rajesh Kumar having been seen on spot. It was true that PW Nina Devi had not narrated that she saw accused Sonu, Surjit and Deepak Singh having grappled with the deceased and accused Deepak Singh having stabbed him with kirch. It was true that PW Monika did not disclose to him that she saw the accused persons stabbing the deceased. PW Monika Devi did not tell him that she saw accused Rajesh Kumar fleeing away but she had disclosed that she saw some persons fleeing away. He further stated that PW Bhim Singh had wrongly stated that he lodged report at Police Station, PouniChak and had not signed any paper. PWs Bhim Singh and Uttam Singh have made wrong statement that he seized the weapon of offence on 3rd day of occurrence. These witnesses further made wrong statements that the disclosure was made by the accused Sonu. 18. PW-14 Zahid Saif Wani is a formal witness with regard to the satisfaction recorded for the purpose of filing the charge sheet. 19. The allegations against the appellant as levelled in the charge sheet are that on 25.05.2008 at 10:15 P.M, appellant called Sain Singh-deceased outside and while the appellant caught hold the deceased, the other two accused Surjeet Singh and Deepak Singh attacked the deceased and stabbed him as a result of which, he died. 19. The allegations against the appellant as levelled in the charge sheet are that on 25.05.2008 at 10:15 P.M, appellant called Sain Singh-deceased outside and while the appellant caught hold the deceased, the other two accused Surjeet Singh and Deepak Singh attacked the deceased and stabbed him as a result of which, he died. In order to prove the above allegations, the prosecution has cited and relied upon the statements of four eye witnesses, namely, PW-1 Bhim Singh, PW-2 Uttam Singh, PW-3 Nina Kumari and PW-4 Monika Chib. The learned trial Court while convicting the appellant has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Bhim Singh only and has returned a finding that it is only PW-1 Bhim Singh, who has stated that he saw the accused persons assaulting and fleeing, whereas the other witnesses have come to know their names indirectly on being told afterwards. The learned trial court refused to rely upon the testimony of PW-3 Nina Devi by observing that she was told the names of the accused persons by the deceased on the way to hospital, however, the said fact was not found mentioned in earlier statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. PW-2 Uttam Singh had not at all supported the prosecution with regard to the identity of assailants. PW- 4 Monika Chib was not relied upon by the trial court due to the reason that she deposed upon the basis of information supplied by PW Uttam Singh. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of testimony of PW-1 Bhim Singh. While there is no dispute with regard to the settled position of law that conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of solitary eyewitness but before the statement of the solitary witness is acted upon, the court has to examine whether the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is trustworthy and if there are doubts, then corroboration must be insisted upon. In 'Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)', (2020) 19 SCC 165 , Apex Court has held as under: '16. Thus the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. Thus the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise (see Sunil Kumar V/s State Government of NCT of Delhi).' [emphasis supplied] 20. Now, we would examine as to whether the statement of PW-1 Bhim Singh is wholly reliable and appellant can be convicted without corroboration. As per the prosecution story, FIR No. 136/08 was registered on the basis of application submitted by PW-1 Bhim Singh with the Police Post, Sandhwan and in the said application it was stated that at 10:15 PM, appellant came to their house and took the deceased near the gate. As soon as Sain Singh-deceased reached near the gate, Surjeet Singh and Deepak Singh, who were hiding there caught hold of Sain Singh and inflicted injuries upon him with kirch. PW-1 Bhim Singh in his deposition stated that on 25.05.2008, at about 9:45 PM, PW Monika was studying in Veranda when accused Sonu came and enquired about the deceased. Thereafter, appellant went inside and took the deceased up to the gate. Within five minutes, the deceased called his son Uttam Singh (son of Bhim Singh) and he along with his son rushed out towards the gate. He found that appellant had caught hold of the deceased from the back and accused Surjeet Singh and Deepak Singh were punching blows. The said deposition of the witness is not in consonance with the allegations of the prosecution that appellant had caught hold of the deceased, whereas the other two accused attacked the deceased with kirch. He found that appellant had caught hold of the deceased from the back and accused Surjeet Singh and Deepak Singh were punching blows. The said deposition of the witness is not in consonance with the allegations of the prosecution that appellant had caught hold of the deceased, whereas the other two accused attacked the deceased with kirch. PW-1 Bhim Singh has also stated that he lodged an oral report with the Police Post Pouni Chak and denied the contents of a written application submitted by him for registering FIR with police Post Sandhwan but admitted his signatures thereupon. He was also cited as a witness to the disclosure statement made by accused-Deepak Singh with regard to recovery of weapon of offence but he denied the contents of disclosure memo though he admitted his signatures thereupon. He also stated that Police had shown kirch to him with which the accused inflicted the injuries upon the deceased. In cross-examination he stated that appellant had made a disclosure statement with respect to the kirch and no other accused made any disclosure in his presence. He admitted that it has been wrongly mentioned in his statement under section 164- A Cr.P.C. that appellant came to his house at 10:15 PM, but in fact the appellant had come at 9:30 PM. Further, he was confronted with statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C and it was found that it was not mentioned in his statement that the deceased had told him about the assailants. He further stated that it has been wrongly mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was caught hold by accused Sonu and Surjeet. He denied that he got the report written by someone and lodged with the Police. 21. The manner, in which the occurrence has been described by PW-1 Bhim Singh to have taken place, is not in consonance with the case set up by the prosecution and rather his testimony runs contrary to the story projected by the prosecution. It is also not the case of prosecution that the appellant made any disclosure statement about the weapon of offence. In view of above discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Bhim Singh, he cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant. Except the statement of this witness, there is no evidence on record against the appellant. 22. It is also not the case of prosecution that the appellant made any disclosure statement about the weapon of offence. In view of above discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Bhim Singh, he cannot be relied upon for convicting the appellant. Except the statement of this witness, there is no evidence on record against the appellant. 22. It needs to be noted that the appellant was charged for commission of offence under section 302, 34 and 448 RPC but was convicted under section 302 and 452 RPC. The learned trial Court has acquitted the other accused including Surjit Singh and Deepak Singh, who too were allegedly with the appellant on the same set of evidence, which is not permissible, particularly in view of the statement of PW-1 Bhim Singh, who has categorically stated that Surjit Singh and Deepak Singh were punching blows. The said witness has nowhere deposed that kirch was used for inflicting injuries upon the deceased. This is admitted fact that no acquittal appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the other accused. In Baikuntha Nath Chaudhury v. State of Orissa, (1973) 2 SCC 432 , the Apex Court has held as under: '12. The evidence of PWs 9 and 10, if accepted, will establish that it was the first accused, who had a thenga with which he inflicted blows on the head of the deceased, while the appellant was catching hold of his deceased brother. The medical evidence is to the effect that the fatal injuries were those found on the head of the deceased, which had been inflicted by the first accused. The prosecution led the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 as it was consistent with its case and as the charge against the two brothers was under Section read with Section 34. If the occurrence, as spoken, by PWs 9 and 10, is established, the appellant will be constructively liable under Section 302/34 for the part played by him, though the fatal injuries were inflicted by his brother. The first accused will also be guilty of the said offence. But the result of the decision of the High Court is that the first accused, who caused the fatal injuries, according to the evidence, has been acquitted of the offence of murder. That means the High Court has not accepted the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 regarding the first accused. But the result of the decision of the High Court is that the first accused, who caused the fatal injuries, according to the evidence, has been acquitted of the offence of murder. That means the High Court has not accepted the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 regarding the first accused. Having acquitted the first accused, the High Court has not attempted to find out the nature of the offence, if any, committed by the appellant on the basis of the individual part played by him. But, nevertheless, it has convicted the appellant for the substantive offence of murder under Section 302. After the first accused was acquitted, there was no further scope for invoking against the appellant any constructive liability under Section 34. To convict the appellant under Section 302, there should be evidence that he caused the fatal injuries. The High Court should have taken pains to find out from the evidence the nature of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. Such an attempt would have been futile, because the evidence is completely in favour of the appellant. The more serious part of played in the assault is attributed to the first accused, who has been acquitted. PW 9 has categorically admitted that she cannot say on which part of the body of the deceased was the assault made by the appellant. PW 10 did not see the first part of the attack because he came into the picture only when he was informed by PW 9. But he is also positive that the two accused dragged the deceased and carried the dead body for being drowned. 13. In spite of the definite evidence of PWs 9 and 10 regarding the active participation of the first accused, the High Court has acquitted him. That means the High court has not chosen to place any reliance on their evidence. If so we are not able to appreciate as to how the High Court can base conviction under Section 302 on the same evidence. In fact there is no evidence on record to sustain his conviction. In our opinion, the evidence of the two witnesses cannot be accepted against the appellant also when their evidence has been rejected by the Sessions Court, so far as the third accused is concerned and by the High Court when it acquitted the first accused. In fact there is no evidence on record to sustain his conviction. In our opinion, the evidence of the two witnesses cannot be accepted against the appellant also when their evidence has been rejected by the Sessions Court, so far as the third accused is concerned and by the High Court when it acquitted the first accused. There is a strong suspicion about the guilt of the appellant. But suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt On the materials on record, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 cannot be sustained. As the evidence against the appellant regarding the offence under Section 302 is also substantially the same, as for the offence under Section 302, the appellant's conviction for the said offence cannot also be sustained. The first and the third accused have been acquitted of the said offence also.' 23. Further, in Hari Shanker v. State of U.P., (2015) 11 SCC 248 , Apex Court has held as under: '16. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court and the High Court on the basis of the statement of eyewitness (PW 2) and its corroboration by the medical evidence. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, we find that since the acquittal of all co-accused has become final, the conviction of the appellant under Section 34 becomes unsustainable. This is the established law as has been elucidated in various judicial precedents discussed above. The two cases cited by the counsel for the State have been distinguished above already. However, in view of the authorities cited, we have to determine the individual role of the present appellant and accordingly find out if he is guilty of any offence. In doing so, we find that there is sufficient ocular evidence to the fact that the present appellant had fired the first shot which landed on the wrist of the deceased. This fact is further corroborated by the medical evidence as per which a gunshot injury is found at the right hand wrist. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 2 is not acceptable as Section 161 CrPC statement was recorded very late and is not worthy enough. PW 2 has given a reason that he was out of station for days after the incident. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 2 is not acceptable as Section 161 CrPC statement was recorded very late and is not worthy enough. PW 2 has given a reason that he was out of station for days after the incident. There has neither been any effective cross-examination of PW 2 by the defence on this point. Further, the contradiction between FIR and the GD entry was not in relation to the role of the appellant and thus, he may not get any benefit out of it. Also, although the weapon attributed to the appellant by which he made the shot has not been recovered; this should not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The only contention of the appellant left to be addressed is that there was no independent witness brought forth by the prosecution. We find that this alone cannot be a ground for acquittal in view of the evidence available.' 24. Thus, In view of law laid down by Apex Court where the accused has been charged for commission of substantive offence with aid of section 34 RPC then notwithstanding the acquittal of the accused under section 34 RPC, he can still be convicted for an individual act if the same amounts to an offence. This court does not find that the trial court has undertaken any such exercise to find out as to whether the appellant has caused the death of the deceased, before convicting him for commission of offence under section 302 RPC particularly when the other accused on the same set of evidence have been acquitted by the trial court. 25. Further, this court finds that the learned trial court has given much weight to the circumstance that the appellant fled away from the spot after the commission of offence. In this context, it would be advantageous to take note of the observations made by Apex Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 , which reads as under: '14. Whether the abscondance of an accused can be taken as a circumstance against him has been considered by this Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 , wherein the Court observed: '27. Whether the abscondance of an accused can be taken as a circumstance against him has been considered by this Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 , wherein the Court observed: '27. In Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 1050 , this Court repelled the submissions made by the State that as after commission of the offence the accused had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn that he was a guilty person observing as under: '19. The appellant's conduct in absconding was also relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime such is the instinct of self- preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In the present case the appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the way we do not think this circumstance can be considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty mind attempting to evade justice. It is not inconsistent with his innocence.' 28. Abscondence by a person against whom FIR has been lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be unnatural. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt. Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience.' While deciding the said case, a large number of earlier judgments were also taken into consideration by the Court, including Matru [1971] 2 SCC 75 and State of M.P. thr. CBI & Ors. v. Paltan Mallah & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 733 . 23. Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondance is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction. (See: Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200 ; and Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 2283 ). 26. We are of the considered view that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly convicted the appellant, particularly when the evidence led by the prosecution was not conclusive in nature so as to determine the guilt of appellant. 27. In view of what has been discussed and said above, the judgment dated 30.12.2013 and order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in file No. 33/Challan, titled 'State of J&K Vs. Deepak Singh and others' to the extent of convicting and sentencing the appellant for commission of offence under sections 302 and 452 RPC, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and challan stands dismissed. Bail bond and personal bond stand discharged. 28. The Reference is answered accordingly. 29. Record of the trial court be sent back.