A person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness, and the omission of details in the FIR does not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-Convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment fined Rs. 1,000/-and sentenced to further undergo one month of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof , the appellant has challenged the Judgment dated 27.08.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.04.2004, Radha Kishan (PW. 2) lodged a written report (Exhibit P/1) wherein he claimed that "on that date at about 11.00 AM , his wife, Manohari and his son, Govindram, went to village Kuchera, in order to buy grocery and household goods. His wife told him that while they were standing at the bus stop, a girl from village Bachwari, Vimala and Jagdish S/o Ram Narayan, took their son, Govindram, towards the Hanuman Mandir (temple). Since the son did not come back for about five minutes, his wife, Manohari, went and saw that Vimala, Jagdish and two other boys, whom she doesnt know, all four of these persons were assaulting Govindram. As soon as Manohari went near them, all four of them ran away. Govindram had fallen down by then. His wife called up some of their relatives and told them and him about the incident. According to him, all the four persons have killed his son."

3. On the basis of this report, a formal First Information Report (henceforth to be referred to as the FIR, for short), FIR No. 30/04 (Exhibit P/2) was chalked out for offence under Section 302/34, IPC against Jagdish and Vimala and against two other unknown persons. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet only against the appellant. Jagdish for offence under Section 302, IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, submitted thirty-four documents and produced twelve articles. On he other hand, the defense examined two witnesses and submitted three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide Judgment dated 27.08.2004, the learned Judge convicted the appellant as aforementioned.

4. During the course of trial the evidence which has emerged is that Govindram was about to get married. He and his mother, Manohari (PW. 3), left their village in the morning for the village Kuchera for shopping. While Manohari walked to village Kuchera, Govindram cycled. He told his mother, Manohari, to meet him at the bus station. Once Manohari reached the bus station, she waited for her son to come. There she met Hariji Master, who inquired as to what brought her to the bus stand? She told him that she is waiting for her son. He told her that he just saw her son at a radio shop. Few minutes later Govindram also came. While she was sitting with some people, Govindram went with Vimala and one Chandrabhan, behind the Hanuman Temple. Jagdish, the appellant, followed them. Five minutes later, when she went there, she saw Jagdish assaulting Govindram with a knife. She shouted at him; when she went closer, Jagdish ran away after throwing the knife away. Because of her shouts, people gathered there. One Chotturam (PW. 1), her uncle-in-law, came there and sent Manohari with one Bastiram, a co-villager, to her village. She accompanied Bastiram in a jeep and reached her village. At her village, she told her husband, Radha Kishan (PW. 2), about the incident. He returned with Bastiram to village Kuchera and lodged the FIR alongwith Chotturam.

5. Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions before us: Firstly, the prosecution has changed its story. According to the written report (Exhibit P/1) and the FIR (Exhibit P/2) four persons were allegedly involved in the commission of the crime, namely Vimla, Jagdish, and two unknown persons. In the FIR although Jadish is named, yet no specific overt act has been assigned to him But, in their testimonies before the Court, PW. 1 Chotturam, PW. 2 Radha Kishan, and PW. 3 Manohari, have changed their stand. Before the Court, they have made Jagdish the sole