JUDGMENT : Per Ananda Sen, J. This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2016, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the F.I.R. in the instant case is against unknown. The informant has improved the prosecution version while deposing as witness, thus, he is absolutely not a reliable witness. If at all the assailant was identified immediately after the occurrence then his name should have been disclosed in the F.I.R. This clearly suggests that this appellant has been implicated in the instant case by way of afterthought. He further argues that P.W.-4, upon whose testimony the prosecution has heavily relied upon, cannot be said to be an eye witness. If the testimony of this witness is properly scrutinized, it would be clear that she has not seen the occurrence as the deceased was walking behind her, thus, it is not possible for her to see who has committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of P.W.-4 is suspicious because, if one sees a murder in her own eyes, it would not possible for her to go to her workplace and work, rather she would rush to the Police Station to inform the police. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that P.W.-4 is an eye witness who had seen this appellant committing murder of the deceased. Ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence in the instant case. Further, as per the State, F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia and only after receiving information about the death of his wife, the informant had lodged the F.I.R. Later on the involvement of this appellant surfaced during investigation. He further submits that while the F.I.R. was being registered and the fardbeyan was being recorded, P.W.-4 was not present, thus, naturally the name of this appellant did not surface. He further submits that while the F.I.R. was being registered and the fardbeyan was being recorded, P.W.-4 was not present, thus, naturally the name of this appellant did not surface. On these grounds, dismissal of the appeal is sought. 5. The facts germane are that an F.I.R. came to be registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Basudev Giri, stating therein that his wife (deceased) – Kunti Devi along with her two companions, used to go to work as domestic help and return home in the evening. His wife, fifteen days’ ago told him that she is afraid of travelling to Hariharpur Gumti as some people are engaged in molestation, and requested him to atleast drop her to Hariharpur Gumti, but due to lack of time he could not do so. Like every day, his wife at about 05:30 A.M. went out from home to work at Gomoh. He got to know from the Villagers of Bhelwadih that the dead body of his wife is lying in mutilated condition on the railway track between Bholidih and Hariharpur Gumti. When he reached there, he saw that it was actually the dead body of his wife which is lying on the railway track in mutilated condition. There was also injury of sharp edged weapon on her neck. It seem that after committing murder, in order to conceal her dead body, the same was kept on the railway track to give an impression of a railway accident. 6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan F.I.R. being Hariharpur P.S. Case No.38/2015 was registered under Section 302/201/34 IPC and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302/201 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed under Section 302/201 IPC. 7. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses:- a) P.W.-1 namely Mahabir Mahato, stated that he heard rumour that someone has murdered the wife of Basudev Giri and threw the body on the railway track. When he reached at the place of occurrence along with other person, he saw that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the railway track and her throat was cut in half. He stated that there was a dispute between Basudev Giri and Lakhan Mahto owing to land. b) P.W.-2 namely Basudeo Giri is the husband and informant of this case. He stated that there was a dispute between Basudev Giri and Lakhan Mahto owing to land. b) P.W.-2 namely Basudeo Giri is the husband and informant of this case. He stated that his deceased wife was going for domestic help. Between Hariharpur and Bhulidih, his enemy – Lakhan Mahto killed his wife and threw her on the railway track. Dispute was going on between them owing to farming. On reaching the place of occurrence, he saw dead body of his wife and saw injury on the neck of his wife. c) P.W.-3 namely Vikas Goswami is the son of the deceased. He stated that he got information of murder of his mother from his uncle and other two ladies i.e. Chitwa Devi and Meghiya Devi, who were known to his mother. d) P.W.-4 namely Meghiya Devi, the main witness and also the eye-witness, stated that she was going to work with the deceased. When they reached near Hariharpur, Lakhan Mahto came out from the bushes and suddenly attacked on the neck of the deceased by tangi (axe), due to which she fell down. He again attacked twice and thrice on her neck by tangi and dragged her to the railway track. Thereafter, freight train came and cut the body of the deceased. She knew Lakhan Mahto and identified him in the Court. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was present at the place of occurrence for about ten minutes. She stated that she deposed before the police that the deceased was assaulted thrice on her neck by tangi and Lakhan Mahto kept the dead body of Kunti Devi on railway track. She also deposed that she has no enmity with Lakhan Mahto, and she stated that she was the eye witness to the act. At para-15, she clearly stated that she saw Lakhan Mahto assaulting the deceased and the occurrence took place in front of her eyes. e) P.W.-5 namely Chitwa Devi, has turned hostile. f) P.W.-6 namely Philip Minz, is the Investigating Officer. He stated that after this case was handed over to him, he reached at the place of occurrence i.e. kaccha road between Hariharpur Gumti and Bholidih Halt where he saw that there was blood stain all around from kaccha road to railway track. He recorded the statement of Jageshwar Mahto and Mahabir Mahto at the place of occurrence. He stated that after this case was handed over to him, he reached at the place of occurrence i.e. kaccha road between Hariharpur Gumti and Bholidih Halt where he saw that there was blood stain all around from kaccha road to railway track. He recorded the statement of Jageshwar Mahto and Mahabir Mahto at the place of occurrence. He stated that he also recorded the statement of Meghiya Devi (P.W.-4), who stated that she along with Kunti Devi were going to Gomoh for work when Lakhan Mahto, who was hiding behind the bushes, came out and assaulted the deceased with tangi, to death and kept her dead body on the railway track. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was chopped into three pieces by the train. He also got the post-mortem report of the deceased. g) P.W.-7 namely Dr. Shailendra Kumar, is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He found following ante-mortem wounds:- “I. Chop wounds:- A) 6” x 1” x bone deep of the lower portion of left side of front a flank of neck. b) 3” x 1” x bone deep on the front a’flank of lower portion of neck on the right side. c) 1 ½ ” x 1 ½” x bone deep on the back of left shoulder. d) 1” x ¼” x muscle deep on the middle front of left arm. II. Abrasions:- a) 1” x 1” on the left side of forehead. b) 3/4" x 1/2" on the right elbow. c) 1” x 1/4" on the right cheek. On dissection:- Underneath the injury No.1(a), I(b) VIth and VIIth cervical vertebrae respectively were found cut and broken with laceration on spinal cord at the side. Trachea, oesophagus blood vessels and other soft tissues were found cut and divided as a result of these two external injuries. Heart and stomach were found empty. No abnormality was detected in skull and brain. Lungs were pale. Following post-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased as a result of run over by Railway Wheels. I. Trunk was found divided into two parts just below the cheek. Internal organs including liver, spleen, kidney, bladder, uterus and loop of intestine were found lacerated hip bones and pelvic bones were found broken into pieces on both side left upper limb was also found divided at lower portion of arm. II. I. Trunk was found divided into two parts just below the cheek. Internal organs including liver, spleen, kidney, bladder, uterus and loop of intestine were found lacerated hip bones and pelvic bones were found broken into pieces on both side left upper limb was also found divided at lower portion of arm. II. Right hand and palm were found crushed and lacerated.” As per the Doctor, the cause of death was due to aforementioned cut throat injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The post-mortem report is marked as Ext.5. 8. Several documents were also exhibited:- i. Ext.1 :- Signature of P.W.-1 on inquest report. ii. Ext.2 :- Fardbayan iii. Ext.3 :- Formal F.I.R. iv. Ext.4 :- Inquest Report v. Ext.5 :- Post-mortem report. 9. From perusal of the F.I.R., we find that the wife (deceased) of the informant used to go to work for domestic help in Gomoh, accompanying her two neighbour companions. Around fifteen days she often faced difficulties on her way to work because of some anti-social elements who are also engaged in molestation and harassment. She told her husband (informant herein) that she is afraid to travel and requested him to at least drop her to Hariharpur Gumti but due to paucity of time he failed to do so. On 06.06.2015 at around 05:30 A.M., like every day, when the deceased went out to work to Gomoh, with her companions, the informant got information from the villagers of Bhelwadih that dead body of his wife is lying in mutilated condition on the railway track between Bholidih and Hariharpur Gumti. The informant after seeing the dead body of the deceased lying on the railway track, apprehended that his wife has been murdered by a sharp edged weapon and the murderer threw her dead body on the railway track to give an impression of railway accident. 10. Now, when we go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that P.W.-4 is the main witness, rather an eye-witness. P.W.4 namely Meghiya Devi, was one of the companions of the deceased who daily used to go with the deceased to work. On the fateful day, she was also with the deceased. 10. Now, when we go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that P.W.-4 is the main witness, rather an eye-witness. P.W.4 namely Meghiya Devi, was one of the companions of the deceased who daily used to go with the deceased to work. On the fateful day, she was also with the deceased. She in her statement deposed that that she was going to work with the deceased, when on the way to Hariharpur, the appellant - Lakhan Mahto came out from the bushes and suddenly attacked deceased on the neck by tangi, due to which she fell down. He again attacked twice and thrice on her neck by tangi and dragged her to the railway track. Thereafter, freight train came and cut the body of the deceased. She knew Lakhan Mahto and identified him in the Court. The statement of P.W.-4 in chief remained unshakable in cross-examination. She deposed that she was present at the place of occurrence for about ten minutes. She stated that she deposed before the police that the deceased was assaulted thrice on her neck by tangi and Lakhan Mahto kept the dead body of Kunti Devi on railway track. She also deposed that she had no enmity with Lakhan Mahto, and she stated what she seen the incident with her own eyes. At para-15, she clearly stated that she saw Lakhan Mahto assaulting the deceased and the occurrence took place in front of her eyes. Though P.W.-5 namely Chitwa Devi was also one of the companions of the deceased while going to work but she turned hostile. P.W.-6 namely Philip Minz is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on reaching the place of occurrence i.e. kaccha road between Hariharpur Gumti and Bholidih Halt he found blood stains all around from kaccha road to railway track. When he recorded the statement of Meghiya Devi (P.W.-4). She stated that she along with Kunti Devi were going to Gomoh for work when Lakhan Mahto who was lurking behind the bushes, came out and assaulted the deceased with tangi to death and kept her dead body on the railway track. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was chopped into three pieces by the train. 11. She stated that she along with Kunti Devi were going to Gomoh for work when Lakhan Mahto who was lurking behind the bushes, came out and assaulted the deceased with tangi to death and kept her dead body on the railway track. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was chopped into three pieces by the train. 11. Thus, the statement of P.W.-4 corroborates with the statement of Investigating Officer and the same makes her believable witnesses as her statements in her evidences before the Trial Court matches exactly with her statements recorded by the police indicating each and every contours of the incident seen by her. 12. The statement of P.W.-4 further stands corroborated with the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-7) who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased. Apart from several injuries indicated in the post-mortem report such as chop wounds, abrasions etc., the Doctor found following post-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased as a result of run over by Railway Wheels:- I. Trunk was found divided into two parts just below the cheek. Internal organs including liver, spleen, kidney, bladder, uterus and loop of intestine were found lacerated hip bones and pelex bones were found broken into pieces on both side left upper limb was also found divided at lower portion of arm. II. Right hand and palm were found crushed and lacerated.” This evidence of the Doctor as well as the aforesaid injuries of run over by Railway Wheels indicates the act of murder of the deceased by a sharp edged weapon and throwing her dead body on the railway line with an intention to hide the crime and give it a colour of railway accident. 13. Further, from the statement of the Investigating Officer, we find that he found blood stains all around and there are evidence that the body was dragged from the place where the deceased was assaulted to the railway track. Thus, the fact that the deceased was assaulted near the bushes and her body was dragged to the railway track from where it was recovered is substantiated. 14. Thus, the fact that the deceased was assaulted near the bushes and her body was dragged to the railway track from where it was recovered is substantiated. 14. We are also not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel representing the appellant that the conduct of P.W.-4 is suspicious on the ground that if one witnesses a murder, it would not possible for her to go to her workplace and she would rather rush to the Police Station. It bears noting that P.W.-4 is a rustic lady and there cannot be conjectures about her behaviour. In view of the cogent reliable evidence, this argument of the appellant has got no legs to stand. 15. It is true that another companion who was accompanying the deceased turned hostile but that cannot be a ground to disbelieve P.W.-4. P.W.-4 had deposed that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer also corroborates the same fact. It is the quality of the witness which should be taken into consideration and not the quantity. Even on the basis of testimony of sole-eye witness, if the eye witness is reliable, conviction can be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 , in para-16 has held as hereunder:- “16. Thus, the finding of guilt of the two appellant-accused recorded by the two courts below is based on sole testimony of eyewitness P.W 1. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single eyewitness 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, the 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. State (NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055] ]. 16. 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. State (NCT of Delhi) [Sunil Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055] ]. 16. So far as not naming the appellant in the F.I.R. is concerned, we hold that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of all evidence. From the evidence led and from the prosecution case, we find that the informant did not know at the time of lodging the F.I.R., as to who had made the assault. He only narrated the fact that the deceased was killed. It is only P.W.-4 who came and disclosed the name of the assailant when the clear picture came to light. Be it noted that there is no question of false implication of the appellant as there was no enmity between the P.W.-4 and the assailant. From the impugned judgment, we find that all these facts have been correctly considered by the learned Trial Judge and we don’t find any material to differ with the said finding. Moreover, as held earlier, P.W.-4 is a reliable witness. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed sans any merit. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2016 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2016, is hereby affirmed. 18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 19. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned.