JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 23.04.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, in S.T. No.342 of 2001(G) / S.T. No.52 of 1998(P), whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no evidence that this appellant had committed murder of the deceased as there was another accused present armed with weapon, as per the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution could have differentiated and the Trial Court could not have convicted this appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that as conviction is under Section 302 of IPC simpliciter without the aid of Section 34 of IPC , appellant could not have been convicted, when admittedly there were other persons armed with weapon. He further argues that as per P.W.-6, appellant was armed with an axe and knife and it is not believable that a person will assault using his both hands. He further submitted that save and except P.W.-6, there are no other witness to support the prosecution case. Even, P.W.-6 cannot be the eye witness, as the occurrence had taken place in the house of the deceased, which is 150-200 yards away from the house of P.W.-6. Since, P.W.-6 was in her house, it is but natural that she had not seen the occurrence. 3. It is further argued that the Doctor had not given in his opinion that the injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course, thus, Section 304 Part-II of IPC should be applicable in this case and not 302 of IPC . On these grounds, acquittal is sought for. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the appellant. P.W.-6, who is the informant of this case has categorically deposed about the whole incident. She has also stated about the motive of the occurrence. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, on these grounds, as per the A.P.P., this appeal needs to be dismissed. 5. P.W.-6, who is the informant of this case has categorically deposed about the whole incident. She has also stated about the motive of the occurrence. Her evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, on these grounds, as per the A.P.P., this appeal needs to be dismissed. 5. The prosecution case as per the informant (Kalawati Devi) is that her father-Bisheshwar Sah (deceased) irrigated land of Lala Sah and some charges of irrigating the land was due which he had gone to demand at his door on 20.02.1997. Lala Sah said that he had no money and that he would pay when he had the same. Thereafter, Bisheshwar demanded charges for irrigation from Bihari Sah and Mohar Sah, but they also did not pay, upon which, he returned. On 21.02.1997, Lala Sah and Ramchandra Sah came at the door of her and asked her to come and take the payment for irrigation. Lala Sah was armed with lathi and Ramchandra Sah was armed with tangi and knife. Due to fear, informant did not reply. Then, Lala Sah asked his companion to go to the door of Bisheshwar Sah. They went there and Ramchandra Sah assaulted her father with tangi and knife. Hearing the sound of opening of door, she became suspicious as to whether they were assaulting her father. She went to her father’s room and saw Ramchandra Sah and Lala Sah coming out from ‘Dhaba’ and climbing on the bandh. When she came near her father, she saw him seriously injured and he was carrying and he was drenched in blood. She further stated that she came out and saw that on the bandh Bihari Sah and Mohar Sah were sitting and on seeing her they fled. Her father died after some time. 6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Dhurki P.S. Case No.7 of 1997 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed against him under Section 302 of IPC and he was put on trial. 7. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed against him under Section 302 of IPC and he was put on trial. 7. Altogether eleven witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 Gauri Shankar Oraon (ii) P.W.-2 Bishnu Prajapati (iii) P.W.-3 Lal Bihari Uraon (iv) P.W.-4 Indramani Sao (v) P.W.-5 Jyoti Devi (vi) P.W.-6 Kalawati Devi, informant of this case (vii) P.W.-7 Ram Ayodhaya Sah (viii) P.W.-8 Dr. Ram Naresh Singh Diwakar (xi) P.W.-9 Gulab Ram (x) P.W.-10 Premchand Prasad Gupta (xi) P.W.-11 Birchand Singh, Investigating Officer 8 . The following documentary evidences were also exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 Entire Postmortem report and signature of P.W.-8 Exhibit-2 Entire fardbeyan by P.W.-11 Exhibit-3 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-4 Entire inquest report by P.W.-11 Exhibit-5 Memo for postmortem The defence exhibited only one document:- Exhibit-A Certificate of Central Institute of Psychiatry 9. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence examined this appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentence as aforesaid. 10. Deceased died a homicidal death is objectively established, the prosecution has examined P.W.-8 the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem. He found the following antemortem injuries:- “ Antemortem Injuries:- (i) Incised wound 4” x ¼” bone deep on left side of scalp. (ii) Abrasion 3” x ¼” on left side of face. (iii) Incised wound 2 ½” x ¼” x cartilage cut deep on upper and anterior posterior part. (iv) Abrasion 1” x 1/3” on outer part of left elbow. (v) Abrasion 6” x 1/3” on posterior part of right forearm. (vi) Incised wound ¼” x 1/3” x 3” on upper part of right side of pelvic region with fracture of underlying just below mid portion of iliac crest. On dissection blood and blood clot present under in injury No.i (skull and under line bone showing depressed fracture beneath the wound, linear in shape. He further stated that blood clots were present in brain matter beneath the injury no.1. The Doctor opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury on vital organ inside injury no.1. The postmortem report has been exhibited as Exhibit-1. 11. He further stated that blood clots were present in brain matter beneath the injury no.1. The Doctor opined that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury on vital organ inside injury no.1. The postmortem report has been exhibited as Exhibit-1. 11. On the factum of incidence, I find that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-7 have been declared hostile. P.W.-4 is the son of the deceased and he is hearsay witness. P.W.-5 and P.W.-10 are also hearsay witness. P.W.-6 is the informant and daughter of the deceased. She is only witness of the occurrence. She stated that her father had gone to demand payment of irrigation from Lal Babu, Ramchandra, Mohar Sah and Bihari Sah, but they did not make any payment. She further stated that Lal Babu, Mohar, Ramchandra and Bihari came and asked her to take payment for irrigation. Thereafter, she saw that they went towards the room where her father was sleeping. Lal Babu assaulted her father with lathi and Ramchandra armed with tangi and knife also assaulted him. When she asked her father, he stated that Lala and Ramchandra had assaulted him. P.W.-9 is the chaukidar. He stated that he had received information by the son of Indramani Saw (P.W.-4) that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the deceased dead, he saw piercing like bleeding wound on the waist of the deceased. Thereafter, he gave information to the Dhurki Police Station. P.W.-11 is the Investigating Officer, he got an information about the murder of Bisheshwar Sah, upon which, he went to the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, which was marked as Exhibit-2. He drew the formal F.I.R., which was marked as Exhibit-3 and dead body was sent for the postmortem examination by the Chawkidar- Gulab Ram, Constable. He has proved challan of the dead body which was marked as Exhibit-5. He recorded the restatement and statement of other witnesses and finally after investigation submitted the chargesheet. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is only one eye witness in this case, who is the informant (daughter of the deceased). She had seen this appellant coming at her door and asked her to take the payment. He recorded the restatement and statement of other witnesses and finally after investigation submitted the chargesheet. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is only one eye witness in this case, who is the informant (daughter of the deceased). She had seen this appellant coming at her door and asked her to take the payment. Thereafter, she saw that this appellant going towards the room of her father and assaulting him with axe and knife. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem upon the deceased is P.W.-8, he had seen three incised wounds and three abrasions. The incised wounds were on the scalp and upper and anterior posterior parts and on the upper part of right side of pelvic region. As per him, the incised wound was caused by sharp cutting weapon, which can be an axe. 13. The evidence of P.W.-6 is unshakable and there is no reason to disbelieve her account, that she would falsely implicate the appellant leaving aside any other assailant. Though it may be said that she had not seen the actual assault, but was a witness to events that immediately preceded and followed the said assault. She had seen this appellant entering the house and thereafter going away and when she immediately had gone to the room of her father, she saw him dead with incised wounds. These were proximate in time and part of the same transaction and was therefore relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joy Devaraj vs. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 102 that there is no bar in convicting the accused based on the sole testimony of the eye witness, provided that the said witness is believable and the evidence of witness is not tented. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 19 of the said judgment has held as under:- 19. Even otherwise, Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact. Therefore, it is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. Therefore, it is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. If the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction. Viewed thus, the conviction of the appellant does not call for interference based on the sole testimony of PW 2, which we have found to be entirely trustworthy. Version of PW 2 being sufficiently corroborated by PW 1 (except the weapon) is an additional ground not to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to reverse the conviction.” In this case, I do not find any material to disbelieve the statement of P.W.-6. 15. With regard to the argument that the doctor has not opined that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause of death, it is to be noted that medical evidence has two parts. First is the objective part which is the finding based on physical examination of the dead body, and second is the subjective opinion on the basis of the objective findings. Once there are evidence of fatal injuries which clearly shows that they are sufficient to cause death, an omission of opinion on the part regarding the nature of injury cannot be reason to hold that injuries were not sufficient to cause death. It has been held in Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 . “9. Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC , in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC . The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC , in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC . The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him.” 16. The defence through Exhibit-A, which is a Certificate of Central Institute of Psychiatry, tried to project that this appellant was not in a fit state of mind at the time of occurrence. The said certificate was not proved by the Doctor, who had examined the appellant. Further, the certificate is dated 18.12.2000 whereas as per the certificate, he was treated from 26.06.1995 to 31.07.1995. The parentage is also not mentioned in the said certificate. Thus, I doubt the authenticity of the said certificate. The appellant should have proved the certificate or there should have been any other corroborative materials in support of his defence that he was mentally unfit, but in this case, there is no such document. Thus, I discard the defence of the appellant. The Trial Court has also considered all these aspects and convicted the appellant. 17. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 18 . As the appellant is already on bail, his bail is cancelled, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the rest of sentence. If he does not surrender, Trial Court is directed to take appropriate step as per law. 19 . Interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of. 20 . Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. I agree - Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.