# Narvada & Ors v. The State - **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1009 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-11-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 1983 - **Bench:** Ved Prakash Vaish, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narvada-ors-v-the-state-44853 - **Pages:** 37 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147,148, 302 read with 149 IPC - Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Motive. Enmity is a double aged weapon - Testimony of direct eye witnesses available - must be decided on the basis of the quality and probative value of the evidence of eye witnesses and other witnesses of prosecution- First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of an incident - prosecution not obliged to prove those facts which prosecution either could not prove or which are not in the knowledge of the prosecution. No material contradictions with regard to the genesis of incident and the testimony of all the factual witnesses - The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the prosecution as contained in the FIR and also in the testimony of eye witnesses - The First Information Report is prompt and is not either ante-dated or antetimed - Presence of faecal matter either 1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES in the small or big intestine of the deceased persons is not a circumstance strong enough to uproot the otherwise truthful and reliable evidence of three natural eye witnesses - The manner wherein the assault has been made clearly proves that all appellants formed an unlawful assembly and object of which was to murder deceased persons and they in furtherance of the common object of the assembly murdered deceased persons. (Para 11, 15,44,62,66,68) B. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134. Number of witnesses - Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any factPlurality of witnesses in a criminal trial is not the legislative intent- if the testimony of a witness is found reliable on the touch stone of credibility, accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of even single witness- every accused person is presumed to be innocent till the prosecution through reliable and acceptable evidence proves its case beyond all reasonable doubtmerely because witnesses are closed relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. (Para 37) Appeal dismissed (E-7) Chronological list of cases cited:- ## Text _Characters 0–39,731 of 122,061. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39731 for what follows._ 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1009 for committing 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. 25. The next question is whether the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC. Considering the nature of injuries caused by him to the deceased, we are of the view that the appellants Harbir and Karan Singh are liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part I of IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of IPC. 26. So far as conviction of the appellants Bijendra and Devendra Singh under Section 307/34 of IPC is concerned, looking to the medical report of injured Onkar Singh and the statement of the doctor, the same appears to be correct and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, their conviction under Section 307/34 of IPC is maintained. 27. Yet another question, which arises for consideration of this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon Harbir and Karan Singh. The incident occurred about 34 years back and therefore, ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Order accordingly. Sentence of three years of accused Devendra under Section 307/34 of IPC is maintained. Sentence of Bijendra under Section 307/34 is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment from that of seven years. Order accordingly. 28. The appeal is partly allowed. 29. The accused-appellants are on bail. They be taken into custody forthwith and be sent back to jail for serving the remaining sentence. 30. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh (Amicus) and we direct the State Government to pay Rs. 5000/- to him towards his remuneration. ---------- (2019)11ILR A1009 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J. Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 1983 Narvada & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus The State ...Respondent. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Nagendra Mohan Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate. A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147,148, 302 read with 149 IPC - Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Motive. Enmity is a double aged weapon - Testimony of direct eye witnesses available - must be decided on the basis of the quality and probative value of the evidence of eye witnesses and other witnesses of prosecution- First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of an incident - prosecution not obliged to prove those facts which prosecution either could not prove or which are not in the knowledge of the prosecution. No material contradictions with regard to the genesis of incident and the testimony of all the factual witnesses - The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the prosecution as contained in the FIR and also in the testimony of eye witnesses - The First Information Report is prompt and is not either ante-dated or antetimed - Presence of faecal matter either 1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES in the small or big intestine of the deceased persons is not a circumstance strong enough to uproot the otherwise truthful and reliable evidence of three natural eye witnesses - The manner wherein the assault has been made clearly proves that all appellants formed an unlawful assembly and object of which was to murder deceased persons and they in furtherance of the common object of the assembly murdered deceased persons. (Para 11, 15,44,62,66,68) B. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134. Number of witnesses - Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any factPlurality of witnesses in a criminal trial is not the legislative intent- if the testimony of a witness is found reliable on the touch stone of credibility, accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of even single witness- every accused person is presumed to be innocent till the prosecution through reliable and acceptable evidence proves its case beyond all reasonable doubtmerely because witnesses are closed relatives of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. (Para 37) Appeal dismissed (E-7) Chronological list of cases cited:- 1. State (Delhi Admn.) Vs Laxman Kumar MANU/SC/0109/1985 2. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar MANU/SC/0327/2002 3. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 450. 4. Susanta Das & ors. Vs St. of Orr. (2016)4 Supreme Court Cases 371. 5. Surendra Pal & ors.Vs St. of U. P. & anr. (2010)9 Supreme Court Cases399. 6. Bur Singh & anr. Vs St. of Pun. reproted in (2008)16 Supreme Court Cases 65. 7. Chapter 15 of Modi's- A Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 25th Edition." 8. Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Mad. AIR (1957) SC 614 9. Jagdish Prasad Vs St. of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251) 10. Lallu Manjhi Vs St. of Jharkhand AIR (2003) SC 854 11. AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3617, Sucha singh v/s State of Punjab 12. Masalti & ors. Vs St. of U.P. MANU/SC/0074/1964, 13. St. of Pun. Vs Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407) 14. Lehna Vs St. of Har. (2002 (3) SCC76) 15. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar etc. (2002 (4) JT (SC)186) 16. St. of Guj. Vs J.P Varu 2016Cr.L.J4185(SupremeCourt) 17. Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs St. of Raj. AIR (2013) SUPREME COURT 3150 18. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & ors. MANU/SC/0897/2013 19. St. of Raj. Vs Smt. Kalki & anr. MANU/SC/0254/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1390 20. Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. MANU/SC/0865/2004 :AIR 2004 SC 5039 21. Bhagaloo Lodh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. reported inMANU/SC/0700/2011 22. M.C. Ali & anr. Vs St. of Ker. MANU/SC/0247/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 1639; 23. Myladimmal Surendran & ors. Vs St. of Ker. MANU/SC/0670/2010 : AIR 2010 SC 3281; 24. Shyam Vs St.of M.P. MANU/SC/7112/2007 : (2009) 16 SCC 531; 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1011 25. Prithi Vs St. of Har. MANU/SC/0532/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 536; 26. Surendra Pal & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. MANU/SC/0713/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 399; 27. Himanshu @ Chintu Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0006/2011 : (2011) 2 SCC 36) 28. Ram Praksh & ors. Vs The St. of U.P. reported in Manu/SC/0062/1968 29. Bimla Devi & ors. Vs Rajesh Singh & ors., MANU/SC/1455/2015 30. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bihar MANU/SC/1586/2001 31. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & ors. (04.09.2013- SC) : MANU/SC/0897/2013 32. In St. of Kar. Vs K. Yarappa Reddy,MANU/SC/0633/1999 33. C. Muniappan Vs St. of T.N. [C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] 34. Bodhraj @ Bodha & ors. Vs St. of J&K. reported in MANU/SC/0723/2002: (2002) 8 SCC 45 35. Sheo Shankar Singh Vs St. of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0116/2011 36. Abuthagir & ors Vs St. MANU/SC/0968/2009 : (2009) 17 SCC 208 37. Ranbir & ors. Vs St. of Pun. MANU/SC/0441/1973 : 1974] 1 SCR 102, 38. Bodhraj @ Bodha & ors. Vs St. of J&K. MANU/SC/0723/2002 : 2002 CriLJ 4664, 39. Banti @ Guddu Vs St. of M.P. MANU/SC/0864/2003 : 2004 CriLJ 372 40. St. of U.P. Vs Satish MANU/SC/0090/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 114." 41. Appabhai & ors. Vs St. of Guj. MANU/SC/0028/1988 42. Rana Pratap & ors. Vs St. of Har. (1988) (3) S.C.C. 327 43. St. of U.P. Vs Devendra Singh, MANU/SC/0343/2004 44. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & ors. MANU/SC/0897/2013 45. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs St. of Guj. AIR (1983) 753, MANU/SC/0090/1983 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.) Heard Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants- Narvada, Mashaley, Sukkhi, Jaswant and Gajraj against the judgment and order dated 7.10.1983, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1983, convicting the appellants no. 1,2 and 3 under Section 148 IPC and appellants no.4 and 5 under Section 147 IPC and further all the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC and sentencing them to 2 years R.I., 1 year R.I. and imprisonment for life respectively. The appeal with regard to the appellant no.2 Mashaley has been abated on account of his death vide order dated 01.12.2015 and of appellant Sukkhi on 01.07.2019 on account of his death.. 2. At the outset we would like to refer the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar MANU/SC/0109/1985, quoted in Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0327/2002,by Hon'ble Mr Justice M.B. Shah :- 1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "Mankind has shifted from the state of nature towards a civilized society and it is no longer the physical power of a litigating individual or the might of the ruler nor even the opinion of the majority that takes away the liberty of a citizen by convicting him and making him suffer a sentence of imprisonment. Award of punishment following conviction at a trial in a system wedded to rule of law is the outcome of cool deliberation in the court room after adequate hearing is afforded to the parties, accusations are brought against the accused, the prosecutor is given an opportunity of supporting the charge and the accused is equally given an opportunity of meeting the accusations by establishing his innocence. It is the outcome of cool deliberations and the screening of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that leads to determination of the lis..." 3. The prosecution story as unfolds from record of the subordinate court is that a written application was submitted by informant Suresh Pal Singh son of Natthu Singh on 5.8.1982 at 11.15 A.M at Police Station Behta Gokul District Hardoi, alleging that today at about 9.00 A.M. his father Natthu Singh and uncle Sobaran Singh along with Balvant Pasi were returning from their fields and when they reached near Kahjuria situated towards east of village, the accused persons Narvada, Mashaley and Sukkhi armed with guns and Gajraj and Jaswant armed with Lathis emerged out from behind the bushes and Khajuria. Narvada challenged his father Natthu Singh and commanded other accused persons to kill him. All five accused persons surrounded his father (Natthu Singh) and uncle (Sobaran Singh) and they fired 5 to 6 shots which hit Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh and they succumbed to the injuries on the spot, instantly. Balvant Pasi made a hue and cry which attracted Mahesh son of Balwant, Natthu Kachi son of Hori and Ram Chandra son of Ram Swaroop who were grazing their cattles nearby. He also rushed to the spot and challenged accused persons, on which accused Gajraj and Jaswant assaulted both the persons with Lathis. All accused persons after committing the crime fled away towards the east. 4. It is further stated that about 71⁄2 years ago the father of accused Narvada, namely, Bandha was murdered and Natthu Singh, Sobaran Singh and Balwant were charged for his murder and on the basis of this enmity Narvada and other co-accused persons has murdered his father and uncle. 5. On the basis of this application (Exbt. Ka-1) an FIR (Exbt . Ka-2) was registered at 11.15 A.M. at Case Crime No.118 of 1982, under Sections 147,148, 149, 302 IPC against the above mentioned five accused persons. An entry of the same was also made in the General Diary (Exbt . Ka-3) and the investigation of the case was entrusted to Shri Jai Chand Singh, who at that time was not available at the Police Station and therefore Sub Inspector Shri Shyam Singh Parihar proceeded towards the spot. 6. Sub Inspector Shyam Singh after arriving at the spot prepared Inquest report Exbt.- Ka-8, Photo Lash, Exbt.- Ka-9, Challan Lash Exbt.-Ka -10,Report Exbt.-Ka-11, Inquest Report Exbt.-Ka-12, PhotoLash Exbt.-Ka13,ChallanLash, Exbt. Ka-14,Memo blood stained soil, Exbt .-Ka-16, Memo simple soil Exbt.- Ka-17 pertaining to the dead bodies of 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1013 Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh and with the letter of request for post mortem, the dead bodies were handed over by him to Constable Siddh Nath who carried the dead bodies along with the relevant papers to District Hospital, Hardoi.He also collected blood stained and simple soil from the spot and sealed it in separate containers. 7. S.H.O. Shri Jai Chand Singh also arrived at the spot at about 5.45 P.M. and took over the investigation from Shri Shyam Singh Parihar and recorded the statement of informant Suresh Pal Singh and on his identification inspected the spot and prepared site plan (Exbt. Ka-4). He also recorded the statement of Balwant and other witnesses on 6.8.1982. 8. On 6.8.1982 the dead bodies of Nathu Singh and Sobran singh were brought at District Hospital, Hardoi. The postmortem on the dead body of Natthu Singh was conducted on same day at 2.15 P.M. by PW 4 Dr. R.M. Gupta and following ante-mortem injuries were noted:- (1) Lacerated wound 2 cms. X 1⁄2 cms. Bone deep on right side head 10 cms. above in front of right root of ear. Obliquely placed. (2) Lacerated wound 3 cms. X 1.5 cms. X bone deep on head, right side 1 cm. Infront and just below injury no.1. (3) Lacerated wound 5 cms. X1 cm. X bone deep right side forehead obliquely placed, lower end ending at lateral end of right eye brow. (4) Lacerated wound 3 cms. X 1 cm. X muscle deep on right side face 1 cm. Below to right lower eye lid, obliquely placed. (5) Lacerated wound 5 cms. at outer region of right ear middle part missing and this lacerated wound curving and dividing the lobule of ear in two parts. (6) Two gun shot wounds of entry 1.5 cm. X 1 cm. 1⁄2 cm. apart from each other on right forearm medially middle third forearm. Margins inverted and lacerated. (7) Gun shot wound of exit 3 cms. X 2 cms. On right forearm middle third, margin averted and lacerated. This injury was communicating to injury no.7. Direction upward laterally muscle deep. (8) Multiple firearm wound of entry on right side chest in an area 9 cms. X 8 cms. X chest cavity deep each wound size 1 cm. X 1 cm. On and around the right nipple in between 11 to 6 O' Clock position. One fire arm wound of entry is just adjacent to right nipple at 2 O' Clock position, margins inverted and lacerated. (9) One firearm wound of exit 1.5 cm. X 1.5 cm. on left out axillary line 15 cms. above and laterally to left nipple, at 2 O' Clock position margin averted and lacerated. (10) One firearm wound of exit 1.5 cm. X 1.5 cm. on left shoulder 6 cms. below to tip of clavicle. Margin averted and lacerated. Direction of fire arm wound of entry upward slightly backwards and to left side. On internal examination the doctor found frontal forehead fractured, membranes lacerated and congested. Brain lacerated. 5Th, 6th and 7th ribs of right side fractured under injury no.8, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of left side fractured. Both pleura cavity lacerated at multiple places under injury no.8 and both lungs lacerated at multiple places. Liquid and 1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES faeces and gases present in the large intestines. The doctor opined that the death of the dead body was caused about one day before the post-mortem examination due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. 9. On 6.8.1982 at 4 P.M. the above mentioned Dr. R.M. Gupta also conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Sobaran and found following ante- mortem injuries on the dead body:- (1) Lacerated wound 4 cms. X 1 cm. X scalp on head right side 14 cms. above and behind right root of ear obliquely placed, clotted blood present. (2) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm. X ` cm. X scalp on head right side 2 cms. in front to injury no.1, vertically placed, clotted blood present. (3) Lacerated wound 5 cms. X 1.5 cms. X bone deep vertically placed 5 cms. Above to root of right ear. Clotted blood present. (4) Lacerated wound 3 cms. X 1 cm. X scalp deep on left side head 8 cms. above to the left eye-brow vertically placed, clotted blood present. (5) Fire-arm wound of entry and exit on right arm lower posterienlly part 6 cms. x 6 cms. on reteral half of the wound margins are inverted and lacerated. Medially margin are averted and lacerated. There is a tissue loss of muscle and skin. Slightly blackening present on entry side. (6) Firearm wound of entry on abdomen 4 cms. x 3 cms. x abdomen cavity deep, 2 cms. below to umbilicus from 6 to 8 O' Clock position. Blackening present around the wound. The direction of injury no.5 was downwards and medially and direction of injury no.6 was backwards and slightly upwards. On internal examination the doctor found peritoneum lacerated under injury no.6. The doctor opined that the death of the dead body brought to him was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries found by him about one day before the postmortem examination. 10. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet against all accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC. 11. The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions was committed to the Sessions Court Hardoi and charges under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC were framed against the accused persons, Narvada, Mashaley and Sukkhi while charges under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC were framed against the accused persons, Jaswant and Gajraj 12. All accused persons denied the charges, pleads not guilty and claimed trial. 13. Prosecution in order to prove the charges relied on following documentary evidence before the court below. Sl. No. Description of Documents Exhibit Ka- (1) Written Tehrir Ka-1 (2) FIR Chick Ka-2 (3) G.D. F.I.R. Ka-3 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1015 (4) Site Plan Ka-4 (5) Charge sheet Ka-5 (6) Postmortem report Ka-6 (7) Postmortem report Ka-7 (8) Inquest report Ka-8 (9) Photo Lash Ka-9 (10) Challan Lash Ka-10 (11) Report Ka-11 (12) Inquest Report Ka-12 (13) Photo Lash Ka-13 (14) Challan Lash Ka-14 (15) Report for Postmortem Ka-15 (16) Memo blood stained soil Ka-16 (17) Memo simple soil Ka-17 (18) Copy G.D. Ka-18 (19) Copy G.D. Ka-19 14. Apart from the above documentary evidence prosecution also examined following witnesses to bring home the charges against the accused persons. (1) P.W. 1 Suresh Pal Singh (Informant) (2) P.W. 2 Balwant Singh (Eye witness) (3) P.W. 3 Ram Chandra (Eye witness) (4) P.W. 4 S.I. Jai Chand (Investigating Officer) (5) P.W. 5 Dr. R.M.Gupta (who conducted post - mortem) (6) P.W. 6 S.H.O.Shyam Singh (Investigating Officer) (7) P.W.7 Constable Siddh Nath (who carried dead body for P.M.) (8) P.W. 8 Constable Gopi Lal Pathak (G.D. Scribe) 15. After completion of the prosecution evidence statement of accused/ appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein accused-appellant Narvada denied the evidence produced by the prosecution and further stated that in a case of 307 IPC instituted against him Balwant and Ram Chandra were witnesses and also that at about 7 1⁄2 years before the incident, his father was murdered and two deceased persons Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh and also Balwant Singh were charged for his murder and the case was pending at the time of incident. Accused Mashaley and Sukkhi, in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have denied any ill will or grudge against both the deceased persons and accused Mashaley stated that there had been a quarrel between him and witness Balwant Pasi and the witnesses are inimical towards him. While accused Sukkhi claimed that Balwant was a witness against him in a case pertaining to Section 307 IPC. Accused Gajraj also denied the evidence of the prosecution and stated that witness Balwant had stolen and sold his buffalo pertaining to which an FIR was lodged by him and Balwant is having 1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES enmity due to this. Accused Jaswant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. also denied the evidence of the prosecution and stated that all the witnesses are from the party of Suresh. All the accused persons have claimed that they have been falsely implicated on the basis of enmity. 16. Before proceeding further it is in the interest of things that a brief account of the testimony of the prosecution and defence witnesses be stated, so as the arguments of rival parties could be appreciated in a better way. 17. P.W. 1 Suresh Pal in his evidence has stated that about 7 1⁄2 years before the incident, father of Narvada, namely, Bandha was murdered. His father Natthu Singh and uncle Sobaran Singh, Balwant Pasi and one Jokhai were charged for his murder and accused persons were having enmity with him and his family members on this score. 18. He further stated that on 5.8.1982 at about 6.00 A.M. his father, Natthu Singh, uncle- Sobaran and Balwant Pasi went towards the east of village to look-after their fields. Since they did not return back for long, he at 8.00 A.M. started towards the fields, in search of them. When he reached near metallic road situated towards the East of village, he saw Balwant raising alarm and found his father and uncle towards the North of him and all above named accused persons were also there. 19. He further stated that accused, Narvada, Mashaley and Sukkhi were armed with guns and accused, Gajraj and Jaswant were armed with Lathis and they killed his father and uncle by firing from guns and assault given by the Lathis. According to him Ram Chandra, Natthu Kachi and Mahesh were also present at the spot and when they challenged, the accused persons fled away towards the east. His father and uncle both died on the spot. 20. P.W.2- Balwant is the eye witness of the incident, who at the time of the occurrence was accompanying both the deceased persons. He stated that about 9 months before Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh were done to death. He, along with Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh was returning towards the village through the metallic road from their fields. When they reached near Khajuria and bushes, Narvada, Mashaley and Sukkhi armed with guns and Jaswant and Gajraj armed with Lathis, emerged out from behind the bushes. Narvada challenged and commanded others to kill them, thereafter Narvada fired at Natthu Singh, who fell down, while Gajraj started assaulting him by Lathi. Sukkhi fired two shots from his Gun towards Sobaran, who also fell down and Jaswant assaulted him with Lathi. Thereafter when Natthu Singh attemped to stand up, Mashaley fired at him. He again stated that he by mistake has stated that Sukkhi made two fires, while in fact second fire towards Sobaran was made by accused narvada. According to this witness incident , apart from him, was witnessed by Natthu Kachi, Mahesh, Suresh and Ram Chandra. When they went near Natthu Singh and Sobaran both were dead. 21. P.W.3- Ram Chandra is also an eye witness of the incident, who has deposed that Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh were murdered at about 8.00 A.M. 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1017 about nine months before recording for his statement. He along with Mahesh and Natthu Kachi were grazing cattle, about 100 paces away from the spot, when he heard alarm and sound of fire and advanced towards spot and saw that accused- Narvada, Mashaley and Sukkhi were holding guns in their hands while Jaswant and Gajraj were holding Lathis. Narvada fired towards Natthu Singh while Mashaley towards Sobaran and Sukkhi fired towards Natthu Singh. Accused Gajraj and Jaswant assaulted both Natthu Singh and Sobaraban Singh by Lathis. It is further stated by him that two gun shots were sustained by Sobaran Singh and second fire was fired by Sukkhi and after committing crime the accused persons fled towards the east. He saw the incident from north side of the spot and towards the southern side of the spot, Suresh and Balwant were standing, who where making alarm. It is further stated by him that both Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh died at the spot. 22. P.W.4- Sub Inspector Jai Chandra Singh has conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. He has proved various stages of investigation and also proved Chick FIR, G.D. Entry, Site Plan and charge sheet as Exbts Ka- 2 to Ka-5. 23. P.W. 5- Dr. R.M. Gupta performed the postmortem on bodies of both the deceased persons and prepared postmortem reports and proved the report as Exbt. Ka-6 and Exbt. Ka-7 The report and its contents has been elaborately reproduced in paragraph no. 8 and 9 of this judgment. 24. P.W.6- S.H.O. Shyam Singh Parihar is the witness, who was present at the Police Station when the FIR was lodged and in absence of S.H.O. Jai Chandra Singh,he proceeded towards the spot and has proved to perform inquest reports and other relevant papers necessary for postmortem as Exbt. Ka-8 to Exbt . Ka-15 . He also stated to have collected the sample and blood stained soil from the spot and also that both the dead bodies were handed over to Constable Siddh Nath and Chaukidar of the village for taking them for postmortem. 25. P.W.7- Constable Siddh Nath has deposed to have brought the dead bodies to Sadar Police Line along with Chaukidar Beni and also that on the next day i.e. 6.8.1982, he handed over the bodies and papers to the doctor concerned at District Hospital, Hardoi. 26. P.W.8- Head Constable Gopi Lal is the person who has proved deposit of containers containing simple and blood stained soil in the Police Station and also of making entry of the same in the G.D. and proved the same as Exbt. Ka-18. He also proved deposit of pellets contained in two envelops brought by Constable Siddh Nath from postmortem house and also to have made an entryof the same in the G.D. as Exbt. Ka-19. 27. The accused persons in their defence has produced D.W.1- Constable Chandra Pal Singh, who deposed to have brought Register no. 8 of the Police Station and stated that the deceased Natthu Singh was accused in one case of murder. He further deposed that three cases i.e. under Section 307 IPC 110 Cr.P.C. and Section 394 IPC are also registered against the witness Balwant. 28. We have heard Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants 1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES as well as learned AGA for the State in depth and have also perused the record. 29. From the above evidence certain facts appear to be undisputed that accused Mashaley (died during pendency of appeal) and Sukkhi are real brothers. Accused Narvada is their cousin brother and accused Gajraj and Jaswant are from their party. It is also apparent that about 7 1⁄2 years before the incident at hand, father of Narvada (Bandha) was murdered and Natthu Singh, Sobaran Singh along with Balwant and Jokhaee were charged for his murder and the case was pending at the time of the incident. It is also evident that accused Gajraj, Jaswant and Narvada were witnesses in that case. Therefore both the parties were highly inimical towards each other and were having very bitter relations. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the impugned judgment and order of the court below submits that whole story of the prosecution is based on false facts and the accused persons have been roped in due to enmity. He further submits that both the deceased persons, namely, Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh have not died in the alleged occurrence, as claimed by the prosecution. He overwhelmingly submits that both the deceased persons were actually done to death by some other persons in the early hours of the morning or in the intervening night of 4-5.8.1982. It is also submitted that the deceased was a history sheeter and could have been murdered by any one. To further substantiate his argument, Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the fact of the death of the two deceased persons in the early hours on 5.8.1982 or in the intervening night 45.8.1982 is well established by the postmortem reports of both the deceased persons as in the postmortem report of both the deceased persons in small intestines faecal matter along with gases have been found, which establishes that the deceased persons had not eased themselves and this fact is in direct contrast of the testimony of P.W.1- Suresh Pal Singh who claimed that Natthu Singh, on the fateful day, had gone to ease himself before going to his fields. Therefore, according to him, the court below had materially erred in not taking into consideration this material point. 31. Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, further submits that testimony of witness of fact, namely, P.W. 1- Suresh Pal Singh, P.W. 2 Balwant Pasiand P.W.3 Ram Chander, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not reliable and in fact they have not witnessed any occurrence. There are material contradictions in their testimonies in the manner of committing crime by the accused persons as well as in the time and place of the occurrence. Therefore, the court below has materially erred in accepting their unreliable and untruthful testimony. 32. Shri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, overwhelmingly submits that the FIR in this case is ante-timed and ante-dated. To substantiate his points he referred to the undue delay happened in the postmortem of the dead bodies of the two deceased persons and also that the statement of informant, P.W.1- Suresh Pal Singh was not recorded at the Police Station when he was present in the Police Station for the purpose of lodging FIR. It is also highlighted by him that the statement of 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1019 other witnesses were also not recorded on the same day i.e. 5.8.1982. He further submits that cuttings and over-writings in the inquest reports of both the deceased persons along with other infirmities mentioned above, clearly reveals that the FIR of the case was not in existence at the time of inquest and post mortem and the same has been ante-timed as well as ante-dated and therefore the prosecution case could not be believed. 33. Learned counsel for the appellants overwhelmingly emphasized that the witness Balwant Singh is a star witness of this case. He, like the other two deceased persons was having equal enmity with the accused persons but surprisingly not a single scratch has been caused by the accused persons on his person and this circumstance clearly reveals that by any stretch of imagination he could not be in the company of deceased persons and he is not a eye witness of the incident. 34. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the conduct of P.W.1- Suresh Pal Singh as well as of witness Balwant Singh for not attempting to save their father and uncle, is highly improbable. Moreover, the P.W. 1, Suresh Pal Singh in his statement has admitted that he after returning from the Police Station did not go to the spot but remained at his home in the same village where the bodies of his father and uncle were lying unattended. It is highly improbable and renders the testimony of this witness as untruthful. He overwhelmingly submits that this is a case where glaring and material contradictions are apparent in the testimony of factual witnesses and therefore, the trial court has erred in convicting the accused persons and they are liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 35. Learned AGA, per contra submits that accused persons were having a strong motive to eliminate the deceased persons as they had murdered the father of the accused Narvada. It is further submitted by him that enmity in between the prosecution side and the accused persons side is well established. The occurrence has happened on 5.8.1982 at about 8-9 A.M. in the morning and the same has been witnessed by PW-2 Balwant Pasi who was accompanying deceased persons, as well as by PW-1 Suresh Pal Singh son of deceased Natthu Singh and other witnesses including PW3 Ram Chandra who were grazing their animals near the spots. He overwhelmingly submits that the presence of faecal matter in the large and small intestines and gases is not of any significance and it depends on various factors including digesting capability of a particular person and also on his bowl movements and even after attending call of nature faecal matter may be found in the large intestines. 36. It is further submitted that P.W.5- Dr. R.M. Gupta has categorically opined that both the deceased persons might have been done to death about 8.00 to 9.00 A.M. in the morning on 5.8.1982. The witnesses are natural and there is no material contradictions in their statements pertaining to commission of the crime by accused persons. The delay in performing postmortem has been explained by P.W.7- Constable Siddh Nath who brought dead bodies to the District Hospital, Hardoi and the fact of not recording the statement of P.W. 1- Suresh Pal Singh at the Police Station has also been explained by P.W.4 1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Shyam Singh Parihar who has stated that he asked Suresh Pal Singh to rush the spot and himself proceeded towards the village on bicycle. It is also submitted that the criminal background of the deceased Natthu Singh and Sobaran Singh is not of any benefit to the accused persons, as no right is conferred on any person to murder even any hardened criminal. 37. It is further submitted by learned AGA that in both the inquest reports the crime number and other details have been mentioned and this argument of learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable that some minor over cuttings will vitiate the whole prosecution case. He overwhelmingly submits that irregularities and illegalities committed during the course of investigation shall not be a ground to discard the reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no occasion to interfere in the otherwise well reasoned judgment of the subordinate court. Learned AGA relied on following case laws:- "(I) Radha Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb and others Versus State of U.P. reported in (2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 450. (II) Susanta Das and others Versus State of Orrissa reported in (2016)4 Supreme Court Cases 371. (III) Surendra Pal and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2010)9 Supreme Court Cases 399. (IV) Bur Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab reproted in (2008)16 Supreme Court Cases 65. (V) Chapter 15 of Modi's- A Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 25th Edition." At the outset we would like to observe that there cannot be any doubt in the proposition that Section 134 of Evidence Act do not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any fact. Plurality of witnesses in a criminal trial is not the legislative intent, it is not the quantity but quality which matters. Therefore, if the testimony of a witness is found reliable on the touch stone of credibility, accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of even single witness. This principle was highlighted in Vadivelu Thevar V/s state of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614, wherein it is held by Hon,ble Apex Court that "The contention that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated." "The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general Rule recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The Section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. "It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes 3 All. Narvada & Ors. Vs. The State 1021 into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstance of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution." "Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony." Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). It was held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts and suspicion about the testimony of such a witness the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses.Therefore, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality which is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth around it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. In Lallu Manjhi vs.