ORDER : 1. Santosh Rai who faced the trial on the charge under sections 302, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2006. 2. The convict has challenged the judgment dated 18th August 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2006 by filing the present criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. During the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1 Pramila Devi is the wife, PW-2 Mahadev Rai is the son and PW-3 Dhaneshwar Rai and PW-4 Ram Rai are close relatives of Susen Rai. They have been projected as star witnesses for the prosecution - they are eyewitnesses. 4. The appellant set-up a defence of false implication on the ground of previous land dispute with Susen Rai and in support thereof has examined DW-1 Ashok Lohar who has deposed in the Court that while catching fish in the river Susen Rai fell on the stone and sustain head injury. 5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Saraikella Kharsawan has accepted the prosecution evidence and held that the testimony of DW-1 being in sharp contradiction to the medical evidence is not reliable and acceptable. The trial Judge has further held that the prosecution has proved the manner of occurrence and motive for the crime and presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. 6. The trial Judge has discussed the evidence tendered by the parties in the following manner: “22. The main thrust of the defence was that the manner of occurrence as stated by wife of the deceased (PW-1) is not believable and trustworthy. He has submitted before me that the deceased fell down on the rocky surface in Palna Dam due to which he sustained injury on the head and died and in support of this he has examined DW-1 Ashok Lohar. Further he has submitted that PW-1 Pramila Devi who is wife of the deceased is interested witness and she has admitted during cross-examination in Para-9 that the accused has assaulted on the head from back side, whereas the doctor has found injury on front side. Further he has submitted that PW-1 Pramila Devi who is wife of the deceased is interested witness and she has admitted during cross-examination in Para-9 that the accused has assaulted on the head from back side, whereas the doctor has found injury on front side. Further he has submitted that in the Fardbeyan she has stated that a single blow was given on the head of the deceased by the accused and during cross-examination, she has stated that accused has assaulted twice on the head by a wooden log. Therefore, the manner of occurrence is not believable and trustworthy. The other witness PW-2 is the son of the deceased and he is also an interested witness and although this witness has seen the occurrence but in fact, he is not eyewitness of the occurrence, because, the informant has clearly stated in her Fardbeyan that at the time of occurrence co-villagers and the accused were present, but she has not stated regarding presence of her son. This fact also falsify the manner of occurrence and on this ground accused is liable to be acquitted. This contention of the defence should be scrutinized in the light of the evidence. PW-1 Pramila Devi is the wife of the deceased and she is injured eye-witness and her testimony has been corroborated by the eye-witness PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. PW-6 is the co-villager and has also fully supported the evidence of PW-1-Pramila Devi. The doctor who is PW-9 has found injury contusion over right eye and upper lid, abrasion over outer left eye and lacerated wound deep over occipital scalp and all these injuries also corroborates the statement of PW-1 who is injured witness. So, the contention of the defence that the deceased sustained injury on fall of rocky surface while he was fishing in Palna Dam is not and sustainable in the eye of law as the defence has suggested in Para 23 of PW-1 that deceased sustained injury on left ear side, whereas DW-1 has deposed that deceased had sustained injury on head and therefore, this contention of the defence is out-rightly rejected. 23. The next contention of the defence is that there is no motive of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. This contention of the defence has also to be scrutinized in the light of evidence. 23. The next contention of the defence is that there is no motive of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. This contention of the defence has also to be scrutinized in the light of evidence. In the Fardbeyan, the informant Pramila Devi has clearly stated that occurrence took place due to land dispute and for distribution of share of wooden Sisam. She is the informant as well as injured and she has clearly stated in Para 3 that the occurrence took place due to land dispute and this fact has not been shaken during cross-examination and also corroborated by PW-2 Mahadev Rai, PW-3 Dhaneshwar Rai. It is settled principle of law that enmity cuts both ways either a man can be falsely implicated or a man commits an offence. In the instant case the facts and circumstances of the shows that the accused has committed murder due to previous land dispute and also for share of wooden Sisam, therefore, this contention of the defence is also not tenable and sustainable in the eye of law. 24. The next contention of the defence is that the presence of eye-witness at the place of occurrence is doubtful as the informant in the fardbeyan has not stated about the presence of her son whereas in her statement on oath she has stated about the presence of her son. In support of this contention, he has cited Case law 2008 (2) Acquittal 140 S.C. 25. This contention of the defence has to be scrutinized in the light of evidence. The place of occurrence itself indicate that PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-6 are the natural eye-witness to the occurrence and during cross-examination, all these witnesses does not leave any doubt about the presence of these witnesses on the place of occurrence as they have stated the manner of occurrence as per prosecution story. PW-5-Manoj Kumar Mahato in Para 7 of his examination-in-chief described about the place of occurrence which also corroborates the Fardbeyan of the informant. In this way, the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the place of occurrence and also presence of eye-witness on the place of occurrence. 26. After scrutinizing the entire evidence and considering the pleas of the defence, I find that the credibility of the witnesses have not been shaken in their cross-examination. In this way, the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the place of occurrence and also presence of eye-witness on the place of occurrence. 26. After scrutinizing the entire evidence and considering the pleas of the defence, I find that the credibility of the witnesses have not been shaken in their cross-examination. I find that the witnesses have stood the Test of cross-examination and I find that they are reliable and credible. The doctor has proved the injuries on the head of the deceased which has been corroborated by the other witnesses also. The place of occurrence has also been established by the I.O. and other witnesses beyond all reasonable doubt. The dead-body was also found at village Dirlong in front of the house of Bhim layak at village road which has also been corroborated by the witnesses. The motive has also been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The postmortem report also reveals the deep injury on occipital area of the head and was fractured. 27. Thus, having regards to the above facts, circumstances & coupled with the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused namely Santosh Rai has committed murder of deceased Susen Rai as alleged in the prosecution case. Further, the prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Santosh Rai wrongfully restrained and also assaulted to the informant, who is wife of the deceased. Therefore, I find and hold guilty to the accused namely Santosh Rai for the charges under Section 302, 323, 341 I.P.C. and accordingly I convict him thereunder aforesaid charges. Bail bond stands cancelled and he is taken into custody. The sentence shall be passed after hearing on the point of sentence.” 7. According to the prosecution, Pramila Devi who is wife of the deceased is the prime witness whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The prosecution witnesses have stated in the Court that when PW-1 tried to intervene to save her husband the accused assaulted her also. However, there is no medical report laid in evidence by the prosecution to prove that she is an injured witness. The prosecution witnesses have stated in the Court that when PW-1 tried to intervene to save her husband the accused assaulted her also. However, there is no medical report laid in evidence by the prosecution to prove that she is an injured witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that PW-1 Pramila Devi has deposed in the Court that at the time of the occurrence when the accused started assaulting her husband there was no other person and if her evidence is to be accepted PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 cannot claim to be eyewitnesses. However, in a criminal trial multiplicity of witness is not a requirement in law and conviction can be recorded on the basis of testimony of solitary witness. Section 134 of the Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witness is required to prove a fact in the trial. 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. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (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 eyewitness 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.” 8. PW-1 Pramila Devi has deposed in the Court that her husband has been killed by Santosh Rai who inflicted Rola (wooden log) blows on his head. When she tried to save her husband the accused assaulted her also. She has further stated that on account of land dispute the accused committed murder of her husband. In her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that at the time of the occurrence she was at home and on hearing hullah she has gone to the place of occurrence. She has further stated that there was no other person at the place of occurrence and, that, the accused inflicted blows on the head of her husband from behind. According to PW-1, she was also bleeding from the head and her bloodstained clothes were seized by the police by preparing a seizure-memo on which she put her LTI. She has further stated that there was no other person at the place of occurrence and, that, the accused inflicted blows on the head of her husband from behind. According to PW-1, she was also bleeding from the head and her bloodstained clothes were seized by the police by preparing a seizure-memo on which she put her LTI. She has further stated that bloodstained clothes of her husband were also seized and a seizure-memo was prepared to which she is a witness. PW-2 who is the son of Susen Rai has stated in the Court that her father was killed in his presence and at that time his mother and Ghanshyam were also present at the place of occurrence. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that her mother had gone to the police station alone at about 8:30 PM, there was no bloodstain on the clothes of his mother and, that, when he reached the place of occurrence he saw the accused assaulting his father. PW-3 is the uncle of the accused who deposed in the Court that there was a quarrel between Santosh and Susen regarding cutting of the tree and in course of the quarrel the accused has assaulted Susen Rai. PW-4 is the uncle of Susen Rai who has also stated in the Court that the accused has assaulted Susen Rai with Rola. 9. The evidence tendered by these witnesses is quite cryptic and these witnesses have not given detail description of the occurrence. However, having regard to the fact that the place of occurrence seems to be just in front of the house of these witnesses, we are inclined to hold that these witnesses have seen the appellant at the place of occurrence and some of them have seen him assaulting Susen Rai. We are inclined to accept their testimony also for the reason that the defence does not seem to have challenged presence of these witnesses in their house in the early morning of 16th December 2005, when Susen Rai was returning from Palna Dam around 7:30 AM. 10. We are inclined to accept their testimony also for the reason that the defence does not seem to have challenged presence of these witnesses in their house in the early morning of 16th December 2005, when Susen Rai was returning from Palna Dam around 7:30 AM. 10. The offence of murder as defined under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code requires the prosecution to prove (i) intention, or (ii) knowledge of a particular ailment, or (iii) that the injury was sufficient in normal course to cause death, or (iv) knowledge that the act was so eminently dangerous that in all probability it would have caused death. This is prosecution evidence that the appellant had a land dispute with Susen Rai who is uncle of the appellant. On the day of occurrence, Susen Rai was coming back from Palna Dam and on the way he came across the appellant near the house of Bhim Layak. From the prosecution's evidence, we also gather that when Susen Rai remained adamant to take his share in Seesam tree the appellant became angry and assaulted him with Rola (wooden log). The medical evidence is that there were three injuries viz. (i) contusion over right eye and upper lip (ii) abrasion over outer of left eye and (iii) lacerated wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep over occipital scalp of Susen Rai. The injury no. (iii) has caused fracture of skull and proved fatal. Therefore the medical evidence, notwithstanding the witnesses claiming in the Court that the appellant gave two blows to his father, is that only one fatal blow was inflicted over occipital scalp of Susen Rai. The other injuries such as contusion and abrasion seem to be caused due to fall on the hard surface. This is also the prosecution evidence that the appellant gave Rola blow on the head of the deceased from back side. 11. This admits no doubt that in some cases a single blow may entail conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in some cases under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and in some other cases under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. 12. In Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab in Cr. 12. In Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab in Cr. Appeal No. 2094 of 2008, dated 09.01.2019, a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by a two Judges Bench that the accused who assaulted the deceased with a spade was liable to be convicted under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under: Exception 4 - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. 14. As we have seen, in the heat of the moment on a trivial issue the appellant has inflicted one Rola blow on the back of the head of Susen Rai. This is also established from the prosecution evidence that the appellant has not taken undue advantage in as much as there is no evidence of repeated blow or that he has acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 15. In Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that for the applicability of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code the following ingredients must be satisfied: “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion and (iv) the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly..........” 16. While the aforesaid is the state of affairs, we are of the opinion that the act of the appellant in giving Rola blow on the back of the head of Susen Rai would fall within Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appellant is held guilty for causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and is convicted and sentenced to RI for 10 years for the offence under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Therefore, the judgment of conviction under sections 302, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence both dated 18th August 2012 passed against the appellant Santosh Rai by the Pr. District and Sessions Judge, Seraikella Kharswan in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2006 are set-aside. 18. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Spl. PP has drawn our attention to the communication dated 20th March 2023 from the Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur according to which the appellant has remained in custody for 15 years, 2 months and 18 days. 19. Accordingly, the appellant, namely, Santosh Rai shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in connection to any other criminal case. 20. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 938 of 2012 is partly allowed, in the above terms. 21. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith. 22. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.