JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.31/2013 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for five months Under Section 307 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for three months (Both sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 20.11.2012 at about 1:00 pm, when complainant-Dilip Rai had gone out of the house to carry the handcart (Bsyk) for selling Panipuri where his wife- Poonam Rai (hereinafter called as 'deceased) was also standing, at that time, appellant (co-brother-in-law of complainant) came there armed with sharp edged iron axe and while threatening them to life, assaulted the deceased with axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries over her body and died. During the assault, when complainant-Dilip Rai also tried to intervene, appellant also assaulted him, as result of which complainant sustained injuries over his body. On information, Dehatinalishi vide Ex.P-1 was recorded, based on which numbered merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-20 and FIR Ex.P-18 was lodged against the appellant. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-13. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was shock due to injuries to vital organs and death was homicidal in nature. Vide Ex.P-9A, complainant- Dilip Rai was sent for medical examination where PW-8 Dr. B.S. Chandel conducted examination over the body of injured-Dilip Rai and found one incised and lacerated wounds. During investigation, memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-14 consequent to which one iron axe and clothes of the appellant were seized vide Exs.P-16 & P-17 respectively. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-23 but no FSL report has been brought on record. Vide Ex.P-22, appellant was arrested. 3. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.P-15. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-23 but no FSL report has been brought on record. Vide Ex.P-22, appellant was arrested. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offences. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents i.e. Exs.P-1 to P-24. In his defence, he has examined one witness i.e. DW-1 Darshan Singh and not exhibited any documents. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 & 307 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that conviction of the appellant is based on PW-1 Dilip Rai whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not reliable as he has not seen the incident. He would also submit that prosecution has not been able to prove motive and that no FSL report was brought on record. Except this, no other evidence is available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that conviction of the appellant is based on PW-1 Dilip Rai whose evidence inspires confidence coupled with the memorandum statement of the appellant which has duly been proved by the prosecution and thus prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellant and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant, which does not warrant any interference. 8. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record minutely. 9. The first question that falls for our consideration would be, whether or not the death of the deceased- Poonam Rai was homicidal in nature? 10. The incident took place on 20.11.2012 at about 1:00 pm wherein both the deceased and injured/complainant received injuries and were medically examined by PW-9 Dr. B.S. Chandel, Civil Hospital Kharsiya. On 20.11.2012 at about 3:30 pm and upon examination in the form of MLC of deceased (Ex.P-10), PW-9 Dr. B.S. Chandel has found as many as six incised wounds on the body of the injured- Poonam Rai which are as follows:- 1. Incised wound on the right side of head just behind ear size 8 x 2 x 3 cm. 2. Incised wound on center of upper lip size 2 x 2 cm. 3. Incised wound on left side chest wall size 4 x 2 x 1 cm. 4. Incised injury was present in front of right forearm 2 inch above wrist size 6 x 2 x 1 cm. 5. Incised injury was present in front of left forearm 2 inch above wrist size 4 x 2 cm. 6. Incised injury was found over right side of back size 8 x 2 x 3 cm. Thereafter, injured- Poonam Rai was referred to District Hospital Kharsiya, Raigarh where PW-5 Dr. S. Lakra has stated that during course of examination, injured- Poonam Rai has died at about 6:20 pm, which information was sent to City Kotwali, Raigarh. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination and after postmortem examination (Ex.P-13), Dr. Tarun Kumar Tonder (PW-11) found stitches present on right side of face between nose and upper lip, right forearm, right upper back & cut was present on left forearm etc. Considering the nature and number of injuries, the trial Court based on medical evidence has come to the conclusion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. PW-1 Dilip Rai (complainant) was also medically examined by Dr. 11. PW-1 Dilip Rai (complainant) was also medically examined by Dr. B.S. Chandel (PW-9) and upon examination, he found two injuries i.e. one incised wound was present over right middle jaw and another is lacerated wound with swelling & tenderness in the center of the left collar bone over the person of the complainant. Query report has also been obtained vide Ex.P-11 in which it has been mentioned by PW-9 B.S. Chandel that injuries found over the persons of the deceased and PW-1 Dilip Rai could have been caused by the weapon of the offence i.e. iron axe. 12. Now, the next question is whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question? 13. PW-1 Dilip Rai is a sole injured eye-witness and also husband of deceased-Poonam Rai. 14. In the matter of Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2016) 3 SCC 26 , the Supreme Court has observed that the Court may act on testimony of single witness though uncorroborated provided that testimony of single witness is found reliable and held at paragraph 11 as under:- “11. It is well-settled that the court may act on a testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided that the testimony of single witness is found reliable. Trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing PW-6 found him wholly reliable and trustworthy and held that evidence of Sandipan Majumdar-PW6 cannot be doubted as far as the role attributed to A-1 to A-6 except Jishu Jain is concerned, which was affirmed by the High Court. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below as to the reliability of PW-6 and to record the conviction. 15. In the matter of Maqsoodan vs. State of UP, (1983) 1 SCC 218 , the Supreme Court has held that the presence of injured witness receiving injuries during course of incident at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. The relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:- “8................ It is the duty of the court to remove the grain from the chaff. These four witnesses are the injured witnesses having received the injuries during the course of the incident. Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted; in fact it has not been challenged by the defence. It is the duty of the court to remove the grain from the chaff. These four witnesses are the injured witnesses having received the injuries during the course of the incident. Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted; in fact it has not been challenged by the defence. As both the parties were inimical for a long time, it will be prudent to convict only those persons whose presence and participation in the occurrence have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with the finding of the High Court that the presence and participation of appellants Maqsoodan, Madan Mohan, Prayagnath and Nando, who are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1974 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, despite the improvements and variations in their evidence. 16. Yet in another case rendered in the matter of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537 , the Supreme Court observed that evidence of injured eye-witness cannot be rejected on the basis of discrepancies of trivial nature and held in para 31 as under:- “31. As already observed, the discrepancies of trivial nature could not be the basis of rejecting the evidence of injured eye-witnesses nor non-examination of some of the witnesses be a ground to reject the prosecution case when injured eye-witnesses were examined.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships in the above referred matters, it is quite clear that case of the prosecution is based on the sole testimony of injured-PW-1 Dilip Rai, who has categorically stated that appellant used to have quarrels with his wife- Naina Singh and on account of which Naina Singh had gone to her maternal home situated at Korba. He has further stated that appellant used to suspect them (complainant- Dilip Rai & deceased) that because of them, his wife- Naina Singh has left him. He has further stated that appellant used to suspect them (complainant- Dilip Rai & deceased) that because of them, his wife- Naina Singh has left him. He has also stated that on the date of incident, this witness had come out of his house carrying handcart (Thela) to sell Panipuri and when he is on way, at that time, appellant came and assaulted his wife (Poonam Rai) with iron axe on her chest and waist and when this witness intervened to save her, appellant also assaulted him with the same weapon of offence, by which he also suffered injuries over his body. In para 11, this witness has also deposed that at the time, when this witness turned back he saw his wife (deceased) lying on the floor and nobody was present on the place of incident. Learned counsel for the appellant also stressed on this point that when this witness turned back, nobody was present and his wife (deceased) was lying on the floor, therefore, he has not seen the incident. We have examined the evidence of this witness minutely and after perusal of evidence of this witness, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is hereby rejected finding that the manner in which the appellant assaulted them (deceased and PW-1 Dilip Rai) has been adduced in his statement and it could be presumed that in order to save himself, after assault on them, naturally appellant would not remain on the spot and in that situation, this witness (PW-1 Dilip Rai) may not have seen the appellant for some time on the spot as he too suffered injuries along with his wife (deceased) who was found lying in injured condition. Except this, nothing has come out from him to hold that he is falsely implicating the appellant. As such, in the light of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu, Maqsoodan & Bhagwan Jagannath Markad (supra), there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 Dilip Rai/injured which was supported by medical evidence. 18. Further PW-4 Mangal Singh has also stated that he came out of his house and saw the complainant- Dilip Rai going in front of his house, at that time, blood was oozing from his clothes. 18. Further PW-4 Mangal Singh has also stated that he came out of his house and saw the complainant- Dilip Rai going in front of his house, at that time, blood was oozing from his clothes. Moreover, PW-10 Ravindra Rai, brother of the complainant, has deposed that when he reached Kharsiya Hospital, he saw that his brother (PW-1) was getting stitched, on being asked, his brother (PW-1) told him that appellant- Amar Singh assaulted them by iron axe. He has also deposed that he saw injuries over the persons of both the deceased and complainant and on account of injuries sustained by deceased- Poonam, she died. 19. In the present case, evidence of Investigating Officer, Y.N. Dubey (PW-13) is also significant. He has deposed that pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant (Ex.P-14), blood stained iron axe was seized vide (Ex.P-16) at his behest. Though PW-12 Naval Kishor, witness of memorandum and seizure, has not fully supported the prosecution case but the statement of Investigating Officer cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. Presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without there being good grounds therefor. 20. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the Court can definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weights over the quantity of evidence. [See: Pramod Kumar vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2013 Supreme court 3344]. PW-13 Y.N. Dubey, Investigating Officer, was subjected to crossexamination at length but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his statement. 21. This is also based on the principle that quality of the evidence weights over the quantity of evidence. [See: Pramod Kumar vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in AIR 2013 Supreme court 3344]. PW-13 Y.N. Dubey, Investigating Officer, was subjected to crossexamination at length but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his statement. 21. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that appellant was suspecting the complainant and deceased that because of them, his (appellant's) wife left him, on account of which, appellant in order to take revenge, assaulted the deceased and complaint- Dilip Rai with iron axe, by which deceased- Poonam Rai succumbed to the injuries whereas complainant PW-1 Dilip Rai sustained injuries over his body. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 Dilip Rai also finds corroboration from the contents of Dehatinalishi (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-18) which were lodged promptly i.e. within a span of 55 minutes. Further, medical report in the form of MLC of complainant/PW-1 Dilip Rai, proved by PW-9 Dr. B.S.Chandel also supports the version of PW-1 Dilip Rai and more particularly, the blood stained axe and clothes have also been recovered from the possession of the appellant and as per query report Ex.P-11, injuries found on the persons of the deceased and complainant/PW-1 Dilip Rai could have been caused by the seized weapon of the offence. The trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and held that it was the appellant who has assaulted & caused injuries by axe to both deceased- Poonam Rai and complainant Dilip Rai. On account of injuries sustained by deceased- Poonam Rai, she died. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 & 307 of Indian Penal Code. 22. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.