would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and depends upon the judicial discretion. In other words, this Court has held that court would be considered with the quality and not the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or not proving a fact. 13. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind when we turn our attention to the testimony of eyewitness relied upon by the prosecution PW-2, it clearly fortifies the case of the prosecution. We find no reason to doubt the testimony of PW-2 as nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- 6 AIR 1957 SC 614 12examination to discredit his testimony or in other words it can be safely concluded that the testimony of PW-2 has stood the scrutiny. 14. The thrust of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that non-examination of the owner of the tea stall located near the scene of crime; non-examination of the ward boy of Savkar hospital; non-examination of independent witnesses who had assembled near