the accused were named. Therefore, there was no scope to falsely implicate them in the case. It has come on record that the place of occurrence was a busy place. Many persons had collected at the time of the occurrence, but since the accused as well as the deceased were not the residents of Sonepat city, all those persons who came present at the spot, were strangers to them. Therefore, non-associating of any of them with the investigation is not improbable, and merely on that account, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away. Though the prosecution had tried to examine Sunil, the second eye witness, and summons were issued, but since he was a proclaimed offender in another case, therefore, he did not appear and the prosecution left with no other alternative, except to give up him. In our opinion, non-examination of this witness does not make the prosecution case weak. The testimony of the sole eye witness is fully reliable and trustworthy and on the basis of his statement, the trial court was fully justified in convicting the appellants. It is well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness, provided the court is satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eye witness is of such quality that the court finds safe to base a conviction simply on the basis of the testimony of that witness. In doing so, the court must test the credibility of the witness by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the court as wholly truthful, must appear to be natural and so convicting that the court has no hesitation in recording a conviction simply on the basis of testimony of a single witness.
