# Bablu v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1217
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1994
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bablu-v-the-state-of-u-p-49915
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 325 - Appeal Against conviction
under Section IPC- sentenced to the
period already undergone imprisonment-
Fine of Rs. 2,000/- Allegations- post
altercation appellant fired from countrymade pistol- pellets injured Mamta and
father of informant- Section 320 IPC-
grievous hurt- fracture or dislocation of
bone or tooth- endangering life, severe
bodily
pain
also
included-culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and
grievous hurt- a thin line- testimony of
single eye witness- quality not quantity
determines adequacy of evidence- held to
be sufficient for conviction under Section
325 IPC- fine imposed enhanced- Appeal
disposed of with this modification. (Paras
18, 19 and 33)

HELD: In Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C., a
fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth is
included in the definition of grievous hurt. In
Hori Lal & anr. Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1970 SC
1969, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for
the application of Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C.,
it is not necessary that a bone should be cut
through and through or that the crack must
extend from the outer to the inner surface or
that there should be displacement of any
fragment of the bone. If there is a brake by a
cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a
rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to
fracture within the meaning of Clause 7 of
Section 320 I.P.C. (Para 18)

In Clause 8 of Section 320 I.P.C., endangering
life, severe bodily pain is included in the
definition of grievous hurt. In St. of Karnataka
Vs Parashram Kallappa Ghevade, 2007 CrLJ 479
(Kar), it has been held that the aforesaid clause
speaks of two things : (1) any hurt which
endangers life and (2) any hurt which causes
the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days
(a) in severe bodily pain, or (b) unable to follow
his ordinary pursuits. Some hurts which are not
like those hurts which are mentioned in the first
seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from
a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious.
Thus, a wound may cause intense pain,
prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim,
although it does not fall within any of the first
seven clauses. Before a conviction for the
sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of
the injuries defined in Section 320 must be
strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exception to the general rule of law that a penal
statute must be construed strictly. The line
between culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and grievous hurt is a very thin line. In
the one case the injuries must be such as are
likely to cause death; in the other, the injuries
must be such as to endanger life. (Para 19)

The Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated the law
relating to conviction on the basis of the
testimony of single eye witness in the case of
Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs Vs Bhagwantbura
(Dead) through LRs, AIR 2013 SC 1204 that in
the matter of appreciation of evidence of
witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but
quality of their evidence which is important, as
there is no requirement in law of evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be
examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a timehonoured principle, that evidence must be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether
the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal
system has laid emphasis on value provided by
each witness, rather than the multiplicity or
plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not
quantity, which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided by Section 134
of the Act. (Para 33)

Appeal disposed of. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Bablu Vs. The State of U.P.
1217

35. The appellants namely, Tejvir,
Hari Om and Pramod Kumar @ Pappu
are acquitted of all the charges, for which
they have been tried. They shall be released
forthwith from jail custody unless wanted
in any other case, subject to compliance of
Section 437 Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of
the trial court, concerned. The material
exhibits shall be disposed of after lapse of
period of appeal and in case any appeal or
petition is filed against the judgement, after
disposal of said appeal or petition by the
Court.

36. The trial court shall issue release
order to Jail concerned in compliance of
this judgement.

37. Let the lower court record
alongwith the certified copy of this order be
sent
to
trial
court
concerned
for
compliance.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1217
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1994

Bablu ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri G.S. Joshi. Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasia,
Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 325 - Appeal Against conviction
under Section IPC- sentenced to the
period already undergone imprisonment-
Fine of Rs. 2,000/- Allegations- post
altercation appellant fired from countrymade pistol- pellets injured Mamta and
father of informant- Section 320 IPC-
grievous hurt- fracture or dislocation of
bone or tooth- endangering life, severe
bodily
pain
also
included-culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and
grievous hurt- a thin line- testimony of
single eye witness- quality not quantity
determines adequacy of evidence- held to
be sufficient for conviction under Section
325 IPC- fine imposed enhanced- Appeal
disposed of with this modification. (Paras
18, 19 and 33)

HELD: In Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C., a
fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth is
included in the definition of grievous hurt. In
Hori Lal & anr. Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1970 SC
1969, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for
the application of Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C.,
it is not necessary that a bone should be cut
through and through or that the crack must
extend from the outer to the inner surface or
that there should be displacement of any
fragment of the bone. If there is a brake by a
cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a
rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to
fracture within the meaning of Clause 7 of
Section 320 I.P.C. (Para 18)

In Clause 8 of Section 320 I.P.C., endangering
life, severe bodily pain is included in the
definition of grievous hurt. In St. of Karnataka
Vs Parashram Kallappa Ghevade, 2007 CrLJ 479
(Kar), it has been held that the aforesaid clause
speaks of two things : (1) any hurt which
endangers life and (2) any hurt which causes
the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days
(a) in severe bodily pain, or (b) unable to follow
his ordinary pursuits. Some hurts which are not
like those hurts which are mentioned in the first
seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from
a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious.
Thus, a wound may cause intense pain,
prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim,
although it does not fall within any of the first
seven clauses. Before a conviction for the
sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of
the injuries defined in Section 320 must be
strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exception to the general rule of law that a penal
statute must be construed strictly. The line
between culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and grievous hurt is a very thin line. In
the one case the injuries must be such as are
likely to cause death; in the other, the injuries
must be such as to endanger life. (Para 19)

The Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated the law
relating to conviction on the basis of the
testimony of single eye witness in the case of
Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs Vs Bhagwantbura
(Dead) through LRs, AIR 2013 SC 1204 that in
the matter of appreciation of evidence of
witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but
quality of their evidence which is important, as
there is no requirement in law of evidence that
any particular number of witnesses is to be
examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a timehonoured principle, that evidence must be
weighed and not counted. The test is whether
the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal
system has laid emphasis on value provided by
each witness, rather than the multiplicity or
plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not
quantity, which determines the adequacy of
evidence as has been provided by Section 134
of the Act. (Para 33)

Appeal disposed of. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hori Lal & anr. Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1970 SC
1969

2. St. of Karn. Vs Parashram Kallappa Ghevade,
2007 CrLJ 479 (Kar)

3.
Laxmibai
(Dead)
through
LRs
Vs
Bhagwantbura (Dead) through LRs, AIR 2013
SC 1204

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Madan
Mohan Chaurasia, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This criminal appeal has been
instituted against the judgement and order
dated
24.08.1994
passed
by
IXth
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 698 of 1992,
Bablu Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case
Crime No. 46 of 1992 u/s 307 I.P.C. &
Section 27 (3) of Arms Act, P.S.- Mavana,
District- Meerut. There is no criminal
appeal
filed
by
the
State
or
informant/injured
against
acquittal
of
appellant-accused u/s 307 I.P.C. Thus, the
trial court's order acquitting the accused u/s
307 I.P.C. has become final.

3. By the impugned order, the trial
court has convicted the appellant, Bablu u/s
325 I.P.C. and sentenced him for 7 months
20 days imprisonment, the period which he
had undergone in judicial custody during
investigation and trial and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

4. According to prosecution case as
mentioned in the written report (Ext.Ka.1)
presented by the informant, Bablu Giri at
P.S.-
Mavana,
District-
Meerut
on
30.01.1992, he was going to the shop of
Saket to purchase the bundle of bidis. In the
way, Raghuvir Singh was beating Amar
Singh. The informant stopped there to see
the assault made by Raghuvir Singh.
Thereupon, Raghuvir landed left fist blow
on Bablu Giri. At 4 p.m. while Bablu Giri
was returning after purchasing bundle of
bidis from the shop, when he reached near
the house of Shakir, Raghuvir scolding
him, said that you have come here again.
Meanwhile, informant's father, Jaipal Giri
reached there. Bablu complained to his
father about beating given by Raghuvir.
When informant's father, Jaipal Giri asked
Raghuvir the reason for beating his son,
Raghuvir
started
abusing
his
father.
Meanwhile, Raghuvir's sons, Bablu and
3 All. Bablu Vs. The State of U.P.
1219
Shiv Kumar reached there with countrymade pistol (katta) in their hands. With the
intention of causing death, they fired on
them. The pellets from the country-made
pistol hit on the chest of the informant's
father causing injury to him. The pellets
also hit Mamta, daughter of Satyapal, who
was standing on the roof of her house,
causing her injury. Meanwhile, Rajpal,
Santa and other persons of the village
reached there. They saw appellant firing on
the informant and his father. Informant,
Bablu
Giri,
presented
written
report
(Ext.Ka.1) in the police station concerned
on the basis of which first information
report u/s 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 (3)
Arms Act was registered against Raghuvir,
Shiv Kumar and Bablu. Its chik report is
(Ext.Ka.3). The investigation was done by
S.I. Fakire Lal Verma. He prepared the
recovery memo (Ext.Ka.2) relating to
taking the blood-stained cloth in his
possession.

5. The injured Km. Mamta was carried
to P.H.C., Mavana where during medical
examination, it was found that she had
received firearm injury on the right side of
her
chest.
Since
her
condition
was
deteriorating fast, no detailed medical
examination was done and she was referred
to Medical College, Meerut for examination
and expert treatment. She was admitted to
Medical College, Meerut on 30.01.1992
where her operation was done. Her Bed Head
Ticket is (Ext.Ka.5). Injured Jaipal Singh,
was medically examined on 30.01.1992 at
8.00 hours at P.H.C. Mavana (Ext.Ka.10).
One gunshot wound 1 cm round was found
on the left side of outer aspect of chest, 8 cm
away from nipple. Charring seen, bleeding
present. X-ray was advised.

6. The Investigating Officer, S.I.
Fakire Lal Verma, collected plain and
blood-stained clothes from the place of
occurrence of the injured Km. Mamta and
Jaipal, wrapped these clothes in white cloth
stitched and sealed it and prepared the
memo regarding taking the same in
possession (Ext.Ka.2). He then prepared
the site plan of the place of occurrence
(Ext.Ka.8) and recorded the statements of
witnesses and on the basis of evidence
collected during investigation, submitted
charge-sheet
u/s
307
I.P.C.
against
Raghuvir Singh, appellant Bablu and Shiv
Kumar.

7. On 04.01.1993, the court framed
charge u/s 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. against accused,
Raghuvir Singh, Bablu and Shiv Kumar.
Accused denied the charge and claimed trial.

8. To prove the charge, the prosecution
examined injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta, P.W.2
informant Bablu Giri, injured P.W.3 Jaipal
Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal, P.W.5 Santa Giri as
witnesses of fact while P.W.6 Head
Constable Abdul Salam, P.W.7 Constable
Vinod Kumar, P.W.8 Record Keeper,
Dwarkeshpuri, Record Section, Medical
College, Meerut, P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur,
P.W.10 Investigating Officer, S.I. Fakire Lal
Verma, P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi and
P.W.12 Dr. N.K. Verma, C.M.O., Medical
College, Meerut were examined as formal
witnesses.

9. On 28.01.1994, the court recorded
the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of
accused. They denied the prosecution case.
They said that witnesses are giving false
evidence and the police prepared a false case
against them. They also stated that false case
was registered against them. The accused did
not adduce any evidence in their defence.

10. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the trial court
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has convicted the appellant against the
weight of evidence on record. It has also
been submitted that all witnesses of fact
except Km. Mamta have turned hostile.
There is contradiction in her evidence.
Therefore,
conviction
merely
on
the
evidence of P.W.1 Km. Mamta is bad in the
eye of law.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
supported the impugned judgement and
order. He has submitted that the trial court
has convicted the accused-appellant on the
basis of duly proved legal evidence and
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgement and order and the
appeal may be rejected.

12. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

13. The witnesses of fact produced by
the
prosecution
namely,
P.W.1
Km.
Mamta, P.W.2 informant Bablu Giri, P.W.3
Jaipal Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa
Giri have given evidence regarding the
occurrence. P.W.6 Head Constable Abdul
Salam has proved the chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.3)
and copy of G.D. regarding institution of
case (Ext.Ka.4). P.W.7 Constable Vinod
Kumar has deposed in his evidence
regarding taking injured Km. Mamta and
Jaipal to the hospital and getting them
medically examined there. P.W.8 Record
Keeper Dwarkeshpuri, has deposed that
injured Km. Mamta was admitted in the
hospital on 30.01.1992 and discharged
therefrom on 16.02.1992. He has also
stated that her Bed Head ticket was
prepared by Dr. M.D. Tripathi. He has
given formal evidence about her medical
examination report (Ext.Ka.6). P.W.10
Investigating Officer/S.I. Fakire Lal Verma
has proved site plan (Ext.Ka.8) and chargesheet (Ext.Ka.9) submitted by him in the
court. P.W.10 also proved the recovery
memo relating to the taking possession of
the blood-stained clothes of the injured
Mamta and Jaipal (material Exts.9 to 13)
and has stated that these material exhibits
were sealed in a white cloth (Ext.Ka.11).
P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi, who was posted
as Surgeon on duty in Medical College,
Meerut has deposed that after being
referred, injured Km. Mamta was admitted
on 30.01.1992 at 10.30 p.m. in emergency
ward of Medical College, Meerut. Her
medical examination was earlier done in
P.H.C., Mavana. On 31.01.1992 in the
morning, her operation was done. On the
left side of the stomach (abdomen) and
chest and on the left side of thigh and left
leg and in the glutal region, injuries caused
by firearm pellets were found. P.W.11 also
stated that he had done the operation on the
injured part of her stomach.

14. On the opening of the stomach,
500 ml blood was found in the peritoneum.
There was through and through puncture in
the left lobe of liver. There was puncture in
the interior wall of the stomach. There was
one small rent (tear) of 2 cm size found on
the anterior border. There was 1 penetrating
wound of 1 cm size on the left side of
diaphragm. 250 ml blood was taken out
from the chest by inserting a tube.

15. In the opinion of the Medical
Officer, the injuries may have been caused
by gunshot wound. He has also given the
opinion if the injured was not given
medical aid in time and timely operation
was not done, she could have died due to
the injuries received by her. The injuries
could have been caused on 30.01.1992.
P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi has also proved
the Bed Head ticket (Ext.C1) which was
prepared by Dr. Sandeep Malik. P.W.11
3 All. Bablu Vs. The State of U.P.
1221
has also stated that on the injury nos. 3 and
5, blackening was found and charring was
caused by gunshots.

16. P.W.12 Dr. Amlesh Kumar
Verma, who was posted as Medical Officer
at P.H.C., Mavana, and who has done the
medical examination of Km. Mamta proved
that he had done the medical examination
of injuries of Km. Mamta on 30.01.1992 at
8.25 p.m. At the time of examination,
following injury was found on her person :

(i) Gunshot wound of 1 cm entry
of one round probing not done, on the front
of right side chest 15.5 cm above and at
11.30 o'clock position for umbilicus.
Charring seen, bleeding present.

Since condition of the patient was
deteriorating, detailed examination could
not be noted. The patient was referred to
P.L.
Sharma,
Hospital
for
detailed
examination
of
other
injuries.
Adv.
Admission, further treatment and x-ray.
Injury no. (i) was caused by firearm. Kept
under observation.

17. Under Section 320 I.P.C.,
grievous hurt is defined which is as follows
:-

Section
320
I.P.C.
-
The
following kinds of hurt only are designated
as "grievous":

First- Emasculation.

Secondly- Permanent privation of
the sight of either eye.

Thirdly- Permanent privation of
the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly-
Privation
of
any
member of joint.

Fifthly- Destruction or permanent
impairing of the powers of any member or
joint.

Sixthly- Permanent disfiguration
of the head or face.

Seventhly- Fracture or dislocation
of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly-
Any
hurt
which
endangers life or which causes the sufferer
to be during the space of twenty days in
severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.

A person cannot be said to have
caused grievous hurt unless the hurt caused
is one of the kinds of hurt specified under
Section 320 I.P.C., 1860. Therefore, it is
the duty of the Court to give a finding on its
own whether the hurt was simple or
grievous. The Court is not concerned with
the classification made by a doctor as to
whether the hurt was simple or grievous. A
doctor is to describe the facts in respect of
the nature of injury and the Court is to
decide whether the nature of the injury
described by the doctor comes within any
of the clauses of Section 320 I.P.C., 1860.

18. In Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C.,
a fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth is
included in the definition of grievous hurt.
In Hori Lal and another Vs. State of
U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1969, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that for the application
of Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C., it is not
necessary that a bone should be cut through
and through or that the crack must extend
from the outer to the inner surface or that
there should be displacement of any
fragment of the bone. If there is a brake by
a cutting or splintering of the bone or there
is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount
to fracture within the meaning of Clause 7
of Section 320 I.P.C.

19. In Clause 8 of Section 320 I.P.C.,
endangering life, severe bodily pain is
included in the definition of grievous hurt.
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
In State of Karnataka Vs. Parashram
Kallappa Ghevade, 2007 CrLJ 479
(Kar), it has been held that the aforesaid
clause speaks of two things : (1) any hurt
which endangers life and (2) any hurt
which causes the sufferer to be during the
space of 20 days (a) in severe bodily pain,
or (b) unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits. Some hurts which are not like
those hurts which are mentioned in the first
seven clauses, are obviously distinguished
from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be
more serious. Thus, a wound may cause
intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting
injury to the victim, although it does not
fall within any of the first seven clauses.
Before a conviction for the sentence of
grievous hurt can be passed, one of the
injuries defined in Section 320 must be
strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no
exception to the general rule of law that a
penal statute must be construed strictly.

The
line
between
culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and
grievous hurt is a very thin line. In the one
case the injuries must be such as are likely
to cause death; in the other, the injuries
must be such as to endanger life.

20. Injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta has
deposed in her evidence on 26.03.1993 that
the incident took place about two months
earlier. There was quarrelling between
Jaipal and Raghuvir. Hearing the noise of
their quarrelling, she went on the terrace of
her house from where she saw that accused,
Shiv Kumar (since deceased) and appellant,
Bablu were holding country-made pistol
(katta) in their hands. Accused-appellant,
Bablu and accused, Shiv Kumar fired with
the country-made pistol in their hands. The
bullet from the country-made pistol (katta)
of the accused-appellant, Bablu hit her and
that of accused, Shiv Kumar hit Jaipal. The
witness stated that accused-appellant raised
his hand and fired with the country-made
pistol (katta) which hit her while she was
standing on the terrace. Accused had
intentionally fired by country-made pistol
(katta) on her and Jaipal. Her medical
examination was done. She remained
admitted in the hospital for 18 days.

21. P.W.1 stated in her crossexamination that at the time of incident,
informant, Bablu and his father, Jaipal, were
standing in front of Shakir's shop. The distance
between Jaipal and his son, Bablu was 2 ft.
The accused were standing about 3 ft. away
from her. The accused, Bablu, fired while
holding the country-made pistol (katta) in his
raised hand. P.W.1 Mamta has further stated in
her cross-examination that blood was coming
out from her body which spread on her
clothes. The Investigating Officer/Daroga had
taken her blood-stained clothes in his
possession. P.W.1 has further stated in her
cross-examination that accused, Bablu is the
resident of her village and she knew him from
before. She has denied naming the accused on
the direction of others. She stated that she has
seen the accused from the terrace of her house.
In this way, injured P.W.1 by her deposition
has proved the date, time and place of
occurrence. She has also deposed that with the
intention to kill, accused Bablu was firing,
holding country-made pistol (katta) in his
raised hand. The bullet fired from the countrymade pistol (katta) hit her causing injury from
which blood oozed spreading on her clothes.
P.W.1 has also proved that after the incident,
her uncle and brother took her to the police
station from where she was taken to Meerut
Medical College where she was admitted and
underwent treatment for 18 days.

22. P.W.2 Bablu Giri, who is the son
of injured Jaipal Giri has deposed in his
evidence dated 09.07.1993 that about 11⁄2
3 All. Bablu Vs. The State of U.P.
1223
years ago, the occurrence took place at 4
o'clock in the afternoon. He had gone to
purchase bundle of bidi from the shop of
Shakir. In the way, noise was being raised
and quarrel was going on. The persons
quarrelling asked him to leave that place.
They hit him on his stomach with their
fists. Meanwhile his father also came at the
place where quarrel was going on. He
asked persons quarrelling that why they
assaulted his son. In the ongoing jostling,
his father received gunshot wound. He
lodged the report regarding the incident in
the police station concerned. P.W.2 denied
that he had not seen the occurrence himself.
P.W.1 proved the written report (Ext.Ka.1).
He further stated that he could not see who
fired by country-made pistol (katta),
causing injury to his father. P.W.2 has
further deposed that the Investigating
Officer/Sub-Inspector had taken his father's
blood-stained
clothes
and
prepared
recovery memo thereof which was signed
by P.W.2 which he proved as (Ext.Ka.2).
Thus, P.W.2 Bablu Giri by his deposition
proved the date, time and place of
occurrence in which his father received
firearm injury but he has not proved the
involvement of appellant in the firing
incident.

23. Similarly, P.W.3 injured Jaipal
Giri has deposed in his evidence about
the date, time and place of occurrence in
which he received injury caused by
country-made pistol (katta) and his
medical examination by the doctor but he
denied the involvement of appellant,
Bablu in the firing incident. Similarly,
P.W.4 eye witness Rajpal and P.W.5
Santa Giri have also proved by their
deposition the date, time and place of
occurrence but they have deposed that
due to darkness, they could not see who
fired and on whom.

24. P.W.6 Head Constable Abdul
Salam, who was posted as Head Moharrir
on 30.01.1992 at P.S.- Mavana proved the
chik F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No. 46
of 1992 which was lodged at 19.00 o'clock
against accused Bablu and others. He
proved the chik report (Ext.Ka.3) and G.D.
entry relating to the case crime number as
(Ext.Ka.4).

25. P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar,
who
was
posted
on
30.01.1992
as
Constable in P.S.- Mavana has proved by
his evidence that he carried the injured
Jaipal Giri to Mavana Hospital from where
he was referred to Pyare Lal Hospital,
Meerut where his x-ray was done. P.W.7
also proved by his evidence that on
30.01.1992 at night, he took injured Km.
Mamta, daughter of Satyapal to Mavana
Hospital from where the doctor referred her
to Medical College, Meerut.

26. P.W.8 Dwarkeshpuri, Record
Officer, Record Section, Medical College,
Meerut has identified the signature of Dr.
M.D. Tripathi on the Bed Head Ticket
prepared by Dr. M.D. Tripathi.

27. P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur, who
was posted as professor in the Department
of Radiology, has proved the x-ray report
of Km. Mamta as (Ext.Ka.7). He has stated
in his evidence that there was no injury in
the chest or abdomen of injured Mamta. He
has deposed that two gunshots (pellets)
were found in the behind of her right leg.
There was fracture in right febula bone.
Callus formation had not taken place. He
has stated that the injury was caused within
10 days.

28. P.W.10 Investigating Officer,
Fakire Lal Verma, proved the site plan of
the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.8). He has
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also proved the charge-sheet in the present
criminal case filed against the accused as
(Ext.Ka.9). P.W.10 proved the memo
prepared by him relating to taking in
possession blood-stained clothes of injured
Jaipal and Mamta (material Ext.2). He has
proved the blood-stained clothes of the
injured as (material Exts.9 to 13) and the
plain clothes in which they were stitched
and sealed as (material Exts.14).

29. P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi, who
was posted on 30.01.1992 in Emergency
Ward of Medical College, Meerut and had
examined injured Km. Mamta, has stated in
his evidence that Mamta had received
firearm injury in the left side of stomach,
chest, left thigh, left leg and left side of
gluttal region.

30. P.W.12 Dr. Amlesh Kumar
Verma, who was posted on 30.01.1992 in
P.H.C., Mavana and has done medical
examination of injured Km. Mamta at 8.25
p.m.
and
has
proved
the
medical
examination report as (Ext.Ka.9). P.W.12
has also deposed that he had on the same
day medically examined, injured Jaipal
Giri. He proved the medical examination
report of injured Jaipal Giri. He has stated
that the injuries received by Km. Mamta
and Jaipal Giri could have been caused at 4
p.m.

31. The evidence of injured P.W.1
Mamta is cogent and reliable. Nothing
emerges in her cross-examination which
could shake the credibility of her evidence
and prove that her evidence is false and
unreliable. P.W.2 informant Bablu Giri,
P.W.3 Jaipal Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5
Santa Giri have also by their deposition
proved the date, time and place of
occurrence and that in the occurrence,
firearm injury was received by P.W.1
Mamta and P.W.3 Jaipal and to that extent
they have corroborated the testimony of
P.W.1 Mamta but have not proved the
involvement of accused, Bablu in the
crime. The facts mentioned in the oral
testimony of P.W.1 Mamta, P.W.2 Bablu,
P.W.3 Jaipal, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5
Santa
Giri
is
corroborated
by
the
documentary
evidence,
written
report
(Ext.Ka.1), recovery memo relating to
taking
the
blood-stained
clothes
in
possession by the Investigating Officer,
Fakire Lal Verma. The evidence of P.W.1
Mamta is also corroborated by the
statement/evidence
of
P.W.6
Head
Constable, Abdul Salam, P.W.7 Constable
Vinod Kumar, P.W.8 Record Keeper,
Dwarkeshpuri, Record Section, Meerut
Medical College, P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur,
P.W.10 Investigating Officer, Fakire Lal
Verma and P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi.

32. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant that only one injured
eye witness P.W.1 Km. Mamta has deposed
regarding the involvement of appellant in the
occurrence. The remaining eye witnesses,
namely, P.W.2 Bablu, P.W.3 Jaipal, P.W.4
Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri have denied
accused's involvement in the crime. Therefore,
P.W.2 to P.W.5 have been declared hostile by
the prosecution and they were cross-examined
by the prosecution. Thus, accused-appellants
cannot be held guilty merely on the basis of
testimony of single eye-witness i.e. P.W.1 Km.
Mamta. There is no force on the submission
advanced on behalf of the appellant in this
regard as under the Indian Evidence Act, no
particular number of witnesses is required for
proving a fact. The statutory provisions relating
to single eye witness is provided in Section 134
of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 134 of Indian Evidence
Act : No particular number of witnesses
3 All. Azam Vs. State of U.P.
1225
shall in any case be required for the proof
of any fact.

33.
 The
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
enunciated the law relating to conviction on
the basis of the testimony of single eye
witness in the case of Laxmibai (Dead)
through LRs Vs. Bhagwantbura (Dead)
through LRs, AIR 2013 SC 1204 that in
the matter of appreciation of evidence of
witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but
quality
of
their
evidence
which
is
important, as there is no requirement in law
of evidence that any particular number of
witnesses
is
to
be
examined
to
prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured
principle, that evidence must be weighed
and not counted. The test is whether the
evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The
legal system has laid emphasis on value
provided by each witness, rather than the
multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is
quality and not quantity, which determines
the adequacy of evidence as has been
provided by Section 134 of the Act.

34. From the aforesaid discussion of
the
oral
and
documentary
evidence
produced by the prosecution against the
appellant, charge u/s 325 I.P.C. against the
appellant,
Bablu,
is
proved
beyond
reasonable doubt. The trial court has
convicted the appellant, Bablu, only u/s
325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to the period
of 7 months and 20 days imprisonment
which
he
has
undergone
during
investigation and trial and a fine of
Rs.2,000/-. The injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta
has received firearm or gunshot wound on
the front of right side chest 15.5 cm above
and at 11.30 o'clock position for umbilicus,
she remained admitted in Medical College,
Meerut for 18 days. Since no State appeal
has been filed against acquitting the
appellant u/s 307 I.P.C. and that 31 years
have lapsed since the date of incident and
learned A.G.A. for the State has not
produced
any
subsequent
criminal
antecedents of the appellant, it is not
justified to intervene with his conviction
u/s 325 I.P.C. and convict him u/s 307
I.P.C.

35.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and nature and
gravity of injury received by injured Km.
Mamta, the ends of justice will be met out if
the fine imposed is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-
(Twenty thousand rupees) to be paid as
compensation to the injured Km. Mamta
within three months from the date of this
judgement. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment
of 4 months. The appeal is disposed of with
above mentioned modification.

36. Let a copy of the judgement along
with the record of the case be sent to the court
concerned for execution of punishment as
modified by the order passed in this criminal
appeal.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1225
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7159 of 2019

Azam ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mohd. Shoeb Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Party: