# Ranjit v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1369 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-01-16 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2007 - **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjit-v-state-of-u-p-45666 - **Pages:** 29 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 IPC, 307/34 - SC/St Act,1989- Section 3(2) (V) - Appeal against conviction. Section 134 of Evidence Act does 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. (para 28) It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. (para 41) The testimony of an injured eye-witness needs corroboration from the so-called independent witness(es). When the statement of injured eye-witness is found trustworthy and reliable, the conviction on that basis could always be recorded, of course, having regard to all the facts and surrounding factors. (para 42) To discard the testimony of injured person very strong and cogent reasons are required and no such major contradictions are present in the evidence of injured witness P.W.-3. (para 44) P.W.-3 is an injured witness and his testimony has also been corroborated by medical evidence, therefore we do not have any reason to doubt the trustworthiness and acceptability of the evidence of this witness. (para 44) If this one piece of evidence is not proved, it does not mean that the entire case of prosecution would be discarded on that point alone. If the remaining pieces of evidence available on record achieve the requisite standard i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt against appellant/ accused, they can safely be convicted. (para 45) The appeals rejected. (E-2) List of cases cited: - ## Text _Characters 0–39,768 of 97,938. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39768 for what follows._ 1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES by the decision of the Managing Committee taken in its meeting held on 18.07.2018 which mentions about the application submitted by the applicantappellant seeking leave without pay and also reply dated 28.05.2018 furnished by him to the show cause notice dated 12.05.2018. 34. Resolution dated 18.07.2018 further states that the Managing Committee cannot allow the applicantappellant to join his duties till he gets the order of conviction quashed by the High Court. Mentioning these background facts, the resolution further states that one more show cause notice be given to the applicant-appellant to clarify the current position and further that if no change is reported then his services will be terminated. This resolution however does not make a mention of conviction of the applicant-appellant for an offence involving moral turpitude. 35. As to whether the Committee of Management has denied the applicantappellant joining his duties in the College is not the subject matter of this case, hence we refrain ourselves from giving any finding on this issue. 36. As observed above, for taking action leading to termination of services of a teacher of an associated college under Statue 17.04 (1) (e) of the First Statues, determination that teacher concerned is convicted for offence involving moral turpitude appears to be sine qua non. Neither the notices dated 12.05.2018 and 13.08.2018 nor the resolution of the Managing Committee of the College, dated 18.07.2018 reflect any such determination. We have no reason to believe that the Managing Committee of the College will not act in accordance with the requirement of law as per Statues 17.04 and 17.06 of the First Statues which inter alia provide that in case of misconduct or lapse a teacher can be dismissed or removed or his services can be terminated only after conducting disciplinary proceedings except in case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. For terminating the service of teacher on the ground of his conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, the employer (in this case, Management of the College) needs to determine that the teacher concerned has been convicted for offence involving moral turpitude. 38. In absence of any such determination in the show cause notices dated 12.05.2018 and 13.08.2018 and also in the resolution of the Managing Committee, dated 18.07.2018, we are not persuaded to infer that applicant-appellant is faced with any irreversible consequences because of non suspension of judgment and order of conviction which is under challenge in appeal. 39. For the discussion made and reasons given above, we do not find any substance in the prayer made in the application seeking suspension of order of conviction. The application is, thus, rejected. ---------- (2020)1ILR 1369 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1517 of 2007 1 All. Vishwas Pandey Vs. State of U.P. 1371 & Criminal Appeal No. 1606 of 2007 Ranjit ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Virendra Mohan, Arvind Kumar, Brajendra Singh, Mahesh Chandra Verma, Maneesh Kumar Singh, Shrawan Kumar, Soniya Mishra Counsel for the Respondent: G.A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 IPC, 307/34 - SC/St Act,1989- Section 3(2) (V) - Appeal against conviction. Section 134 of Evidence Act does 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. (para 28) It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. (para 41) The testimony of an injured eye-witness needs corroboration from the so-called independent witness(es). When the statement of injured eye-witness is found trustworthy and reliable, the conviction on that basis could always be recorded, of course, having regard to all the facts and surrounding factors. (para 42) To discard the testimony of injured person very strong and cogent reasons are required and no such major contradictions are present in the evidence of injured witness P.W.-3. (para 44) P.W.-3 is an injured witness and his testimony has also been corroborated by medical evidence, therefore we do not have any reason to doubt the trustworthiness and acceptability of the evidence of this witness. (para 44) If this one piece of evidence is not proved, it does not mean that the entire case of prosecution would be discarded on that point alone. If the remaining pieces of evidence available on record achieve the requisite standard i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt against appellant/ accused, they can safely be convicted. (para 45) The appeals rejected. (E-2) List of cases cited: - 1. Smt. Gargi Vs. St. of Hary., AIR 2019 SC 1086 2. Sudarshan & ors. Vs. St. of Mah., 2014 (12) SCC 312 3. Hira Lal Yadav Vs. St. of Jharkhand, 2013 SCW 2278 4. Shiv Lal & ors. Vs. St. of Chhatisgarh, 2011 (9) SCC 561 5. Anand Mohan Vs. St. of Bihar, 2012 (7) SCC 225 6. A. Shankar Vs. St. of Karnatka, 2011 (6) SCC 279 7. Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614 8. Lallu Manjhi Vs. St. of Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 854 9. Sucha singh Vs. St. of Punj. AIR 2003 SC 3617 10. Masalti & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. MANU/SC/0074/1964 11. St. of Punj. Vs. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 12. Lehna Vs. St. of Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 76) 13. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs. St. of Bihar etc. (2002 (4) JT (SC) 186) 1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 14. Molu & ors. Vs. St. of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 2499 15. Praful Sudhakar Parab Vs. St. of Mah., AIR 2016 SC 3107 16. Ravinder Kumar & anr. Vs. St. of Punj., 2001 (7) SCC 690 (AIR 2001 SC 3570) 17. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs. St. of Bihar, MANU/SC/0327/2002 18. Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & ors., MANU/SC/0897/2013 19. St. of U.P. Vs. Naresh MANU/SC/0228/2011: (2011) 4 SCC 324 20. Tehsildar Singh & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. MANU/SC/0053/1959: AIR 1959 SC 1012 21. Pudhu Raja & anr. Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police MANU/SC/0761/2012: JT 2012 (9) SC 252 22. Lal Bahadur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0333/2013: (2013) 4 SCC 557) 23. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. St. of Guj. AIR 1983, 753, MANU/SC/0090/1983 24. Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma Vs. St. of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 25. Ramesh Bhagwan Manjrekar & ors.. Vs. St. of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/0161/1996 26. Mohar & ors. Vs. St. of U.P., MANU/SC/0808/2002 27. Akhtar & ors. Vs. St. of Uttaranchal, MANU/SC/0556/2009 28. Krishan Vs. St. of Har. 2006 (12) SCC 459 29. Jarnail Singh & ors. Vs. St. of Punj., MANU/SC/1584 /2009 30. Abdul Sayeed Vs. St. of M.P., MANU/SC/0702/2010 31. Manjit Singh Vs. The St. of Punj., MANU/SC/1195/2019 32. Ramkant Rai Vs. Madan Rai and Ors. MANU/SC/0780/2003: 2004CriLJ36 33. Gangadhar Behera & ors. Vs. St. of Orissa, MANU/SC/0875/2002 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant - Ranjit and Shri Diwakar Singh, Advocate, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant - Lallu @ Lala Ram as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. These criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 852 of 2005, arising out of Crime No. 387 of 2005, under Sections 302 IPC, 307/34 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, relating to Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri, whereby appellant Ranjit has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for a period of ten yeas and fine of Rs. 5000/- and also in default of payment of fine the appellant is sentenced for six months imprisonment and appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for a period of ten yeas and fine of Rs. 5000/- and also in default of payment of fine the appellant is sentenced for six months imprisonment. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that informant Sher Singh son of Badri Yadav, R/o Village Kashipur, District Kheri submitted a 1 All. Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. 1373 written information on 4.4.2005 at 4.10 A.M. at Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri stating therein that he is a resident of village Kashipur, Police Station Pasgawan and in the intervening night of 3/4.4.2005 his father Badri Yadav was sleeping in a ''Baggar'( A room usually situated in the outer portion of the house for multifarious activities) along with one Dal Chand Raidas. His two sons Pushpendra and Manoj were also sleeping in the same ''Baggar' at a short distance from Badri Yadav and he was sleeping on the roof of the house. It is further stated that his father, namely, Badri Yadav on 18-19 March had executed a sale deed in his favour pertaining to land admeasuring 7 Bighas and he was residing with him since long. His brothers Lallu @ Lala Ram (Appellant), Sarnam and Devi were angry with him on this score. It was further stated that litigation pertaining to the same land was also pending in between Dalchand and Ram Kali and appellant Ranjit was doing pairvi of that case on behalf of Ram Kali. His father also testified in favour of Dal Chand in that case and due to this reason appellant Ranjit was having enmity with his father.In the intervening night of 3/4.4.2005 at about 12.00 O' clock his brother Lallu @ Lala Ram, Ranjit and Gajram committed murder of his father Badri Yadav by assaulting him with 'Banka' and by firing from country made pistol. It was also stated that Dalchand also sustained fire-arm injuries in the incident and on hearing the sound of Gun shots he, his sons as well as Ram Autar had seen accused persons committing the crime and running away, in the light of torches.Ranjit was armed with 'Banka' and other accused persons were armed with 'country made pistols'. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned written information an FIR was registered at Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri on 4.4.2005 at 4.10 A.M. against Lallu @ Lala Ram, Ranjit and Gajram under Sections 302/307 IPC at Case Crime No. 387 of 2005 and the investigation of the crime was entrusted to Shri Ram Pradeep Yadav, S.H.O., Police Station Pasgawan. 5. The Investigating Officer of the crime, namely, Ram Pradeep Yadav after taking over the investigation of the case proceeded to the place of occurrence and inspected the spot on the pointing of informant and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-20) of the scene of occurrence. He also got the inquest report (Ext. Ka-14) of the body of the deceased and other necessary papers prepared for the purpose of post mortem of the body of the deceased i.e. sample seal (Ext. Ka-15) Challan Lash (Ext. Ka-16), photo lash (Ext. Ka-17), Chitthi R.I. (Ext. Ka-18), Chitthi C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-19). He also collected the simple and blood stained soil, blood stained piece of quilt and cushion (Gadda) from the spot and prepared a memo of the same as (Ext. Ka-8). He also inspected the torch presented by informant Sher Singh and also prepared a seizure memo of the same (Ext. Ka-9).The Investigating Officer also inspected the ''ladder' which was stated to have been used by the informant for sleeping on the roof of the house and after inspecting the same he prepared a memo (Ext. Ka-10) of the same and placed the same in the custody of informant. 6. The postmortem on the body of deceased Badri Yadav was performed by P.W.6- Dr. Akhilesh Khare on 5.8.2005 at 3.00 P.M. at District Hospital, Kheri He found the body of deceased of about 65 years, a person of average built, rigor mortis had passed from both the upper and lower extremities and postmortem staining was present on the back. The skin was 1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES pealed off at places of abdomen and distended. On internal examination, 2nd and 3rd ribs of right side were found fractured. The small intestine was found containing gases while faecal matter and gases were found in large intestine. The gallbladder was half full and spleen and kidneys were found pale. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:- (i) Incised wound 8 cms. x 2 cms. x bone deep over left angle of mouth and face underlying muscles vessels upper and lower jaw found cut. (ii) Incised wound 10 cms. x 1 cm. x bone deep over chin, 1cm. behind tooth cut underlying lower jaw found cut. (iii) Incised wound 6 cms. x 1 cms. x bone deep over chin 1.5 cm. below Inj. No.2 underlying lower jaw found cut. (iv) Multiple incised wound in an area of 10 cms. x 5 cms. vertebra deep over front and left side of neck 4 cms. below chin underlying muscles, vessels, trachea, occiphagus and 2nd central vertebra, spinal cord found cut. (v) Incised wound 4 cms. x 1 cm. x bone deep over back of ring finger and little finger. (vi) Fire-arm wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. x chest cavity deep on left side back of chest 2 cms. below left angle of scapula, and 5 cms. away from mid-line on back, margins inverted, irregular, echymosed. (vii) Fire-arm wound of exit 2 cms. x 2 cms. x chest cavity deep on upper part of right side of chest 8 cms. above right nipple at 12 O' clock position, margins inverted, irregular echymosed, on dissection underlying both pleura, both lung found lacerated and 1.5 Lt. Clotted and fluid blood present in chest cavity and injury no.7 communicating to Injury No. 6 through and through. The cause of death of the deceased was found to be shock and hemorrhage which was the result of ante-mortem injuries. 7. The injuries sustained by injured Dal Chand were examined on 4.4.2005 at 5.45 A.M. by Dr. Ranjendra Prasad (P.W.7) who was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital Kheri. Following injuries were found on the person of Dal Chand:- (i) Fire-arm wound of entry 1.0 cm. x 0.8 cm. x depth not probed on upper part of chest just below medial end of right cervical, clotted blood present, margins inverted, echymosed. KUO advised x-ray. (ii) Fire-arm wound of exit 2.00 cms. x 1.00 cm. x depth not probed on right side of chest 7 cms. away from right nipple, clotted blood present, margin everted, KUO advised x-ray. X-Ray was advised for both the injuries. The injuries were stated to have been caused by fire-arm weapons and duration of both the injuries were described fresh. The x-ray report dated 4.4.2005 available on record as Ext. Ka-2 reveals that heterogeneous opacity was noticed in right lung (upper and middle zone) of the injured. 8. The investigation officer also caused the arrest of the appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram and recovered a country made pistol and cartridgeson his pointing out, from his house which was allegedly used by him in the commission of offence and also prepared a recovery memo of the same. 9. The second Investigating Officer of the crime, Shri Shiv Ram Yadav recorded the statement of the witnesses and also took the police custody remand of 1 All. Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. 1375 accused Ranjit and a 'Banka' was recovered from his pointing, which was concealed by him in the southern room of his house. The 'Banka', so recovered was sealed and a recovery memo of the same (Ext. Ka-11) was prepared. The Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence submitted charge sheet against accused Lallu @ Lala Ram, Ranjit and Gajram under Sections 302, 307/34 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act. 10. The case being triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Session and charges under Sections 302, 307/34 IPC were framed against appellants. Both appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 11. The prosecution in order to prove its case before the trial court produced following documentary evidence:- (i) Written Information (Ext. Ka-1) (ii) X-ray report pertaining to injured Dal Chand (Ext. Ka-2). (iii) Site plan (Ext. Ka-3) (iv) Site plan (Ext. Ka-4) (v) Charge sheet (Ext. Ka-5) (vi) Postmortem report of deceased Badri (Ext. Ka-6) (vii) Chemical analysis report (Ext. Ka-7) (viii) Memo of seizure of plain and blood stained soil (Ext. Ka-8) (ix) Memo of seizure of chart (Ext. Ka-9) (x) Memo of seizure of ladder and Gobar Gas bulb (Ext. Ka-10) (xi) Memo of recovery of Banka (Ext. Ka-11) (xii) Chick FIR (Ext. Ka-12) (xiii) G.D. Kayami (Ext. Ka-13) (xiv) Inquest Report (Ext. Ka14) (xv) Sample of seal (Ext. Ka-15) (xvi) Chalian Lash (Ext. Ka-16) (xvii) Photo Lash (Ext. Ka-17) (xviii) Chitthi R.I. (Ext. Ka-18) (xix) Chitthi CMO (Ext. Ka-19) (xx) Site plan of the place from where Banka is recovered(Ext. Ka- 20) 12. Apart from the above mentioned documentary evidence the prosecution also relied on the testimony of following witnesses:- (i) P.W.1- Sher Singh (informant) (ii) P.W.2- Pushpendra (Eye witness) (iii) P.W.3-Dal Chand (injured witness) (iv) P.W.4- Dr. V.K. Verma (radiologist) (v) P.W.5- Shiv Ram Yadav (Investigating Officer) (vi) P.W.6- Dr. Akhilesh Khare (who conducted postmortem) (vii) P.W.7- Dr. Rajendra Prasad (who examined injuries of injured PW-3 Dal Chand) (viii) P.W.8- Ram Autar (Eye witness) (ix) P.W.9- Head Constable- Ram Prakash (Scribe of Chick FIR and G.D.) (x) P.W.10- Ram Autar Singh- Sub Inspector (who prepared inquest report) (xi) P.W.11- S.I. Ram Pradeep Yadav (Investigating Officer) (xii) P.W.12- S.I. B.D. Arun (who caused recovery of Banka) After completion of evidence of prosecution the statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES wherein both appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of enmity and false recoveries on their pointing have been shown by the police. They claimed that they are innocent and have been framed on the basis of enmity and party-bandi. The accused persons in their defence have placed before the trial court certified copy of a judgment (Ext. Kha-1) dated 12.2.2007 passed by Consolidation Officer Salya in Case No. 2869/31/04-05, under Section 9 Ka (2) of Consolidation Act, Pargana Pasgawan, Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri in Dal Chand Vs. State. Certified copy of objections (Ext. Kha-2) filed by Smt. Bitana w/o Bhikhari filed in the above mentioned case and certified copy of statement of witness Ram Autar s/o Chokhe Lal R/o Village Kashipur, P.S. Pasgawan, District Kheri recorded in Crl. Case No. 772/05 under Section 25(1)-B Arms Act, Police Station Mohammadi, District Kheri (Ext. Kha-3) were also submitted by them. 13. Trial court after considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution and accused persons and after appreciating the same came to the concussion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants Lallu @ Lala Ram and Ranjit and thereby convicted both of them under Sections 302 IPC and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in the manner recorded in the second paragraph of this judgment. The trial Court did not find accused Gajram guilty of any offence and therefore acquitted him of all the charges. The trial court also did not find the charges under Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act proved against all accused persons. 14. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the trial court in utter disregard to the evidence available on record has convicted the appellants for the offence which they have not committed and the findings of the trial court pertaining to the guilt of the appellants are not based on evidence available on record. It is overwhelmingly submitted that the main eye witnesses of the crime, namely P.W.1- Sher Singh and P.W. 2- Pushpendra have not supported the case of the prosecution, but the trial Court, even in absence of any reliable evidence, has convicted the appellants on the basis of unreliable testimony of P.W.3- Dal Chand and P.W.8- Ram Autar, while it was evident on record that Dal Chand and Ram Autar are brothers and are interested in conviction of the appellants on the basis of enmity. It is next submitted that FIR in the matter has been lodged ante-time and the trial court has ignored this glaring fact, which was itself sufficient to discard the prosecution case. P.W.3 Dal Chand is stated to be the prime witness of the incident and is stated to have sustained fire-arm injuries but even if the incident as narrated by P.W.3- Dal Chand is believed then it was impossible for P.W.3- Dal Chand to have recognized the real assailants in absence of any source of light. The theory of prosecution that gobar gas lamp was lighting in the baggar could not be believed in the back ground facts and evidence on record. The prosecution story pertaining to the presence of P.W.3 in the baggar owned by deceased Badri is also not believable as no quilt or cushion of P.W.3- Dal Chand was recovered by the Investigating Officer, while the quilt and ''Gadda' (Cushion) which at the time of incident was being used by the deceased Badri Yadav was recovered by the Investigating Officer. The above factual 1 All. Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. 1377 matrix completely rules out the presence of P.W.3- Dal Chand at the spot at the time of incident. It is next submitted that the ocular evidence has also not been supported by the medical evidence and keeping in view that the informant of the case, namely, P.W.1- Sher Singh and eye witness P.W.2- Pushpendra have not supported the case of the prosecution the trial Court has materially erred in convicting the appellant. The recovery of Banka and country made pistol at the instance of appellant Ranjit and appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram is highly doubtful. The testimony of P.W.8- Ram Autar who is brother of P.W.3- Dal Chand is also not acceptable and there is no reason shown by the prosecution as to why he was shown to be the witness of both recoveries and therefore in absence of any independent witness of the above mentioned recoveries the evidence of P.W.-8 pertaining to the recovery could not be accepted. Learned Amicus Curiae relied on following case laws in support of his contention. (i) Smt. Gargi Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2019 SC 1086. (ii) Sudarshan and others Vs. State of Maharastra, 2014 (12) SCC 312. (iii) Hira Lal Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 SCW 2278. (iv) Shiv Lal and others Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2011 (9) SCC 561. (v) Anand Mohan Vs. State of Bihar, 2012 (7) SCC 225. (vi) A. Shankar Vs. State of Karnatka, 2011 (6) SCC 279. 15. Per contra learned AGA submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case before the trial court beyond all reasonable doubts and the court below has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witness keeping in view the established principles of appreciation of evidence. P.W.3- Dal Chand is an injured witness of the incident and he has sustained grievous fire-arm injuries, which could not be self inflicted. His presence on the spot is proved beyond all reasonable doubt as he was a close friend of deceased Badri. The role of firing with a country made pistol has been assigned by the injured witness P.W.3- Dal Chand to the appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram while the role of inflicting injuries to deceased Badri Yadav by a ''Banka' has been attributed to appellant Ranjit. The injuries of fire-arm has been found on the person of P.W.3- Dal Chand as well as on the person of deceased Badri Yadav. While injuires which can be sustained by ''Banka' has been found on the person of deceased Badri Yadav. The Investigating officer has also collected the piece of quilt and cushion and also the blood stained and plain soil from the baggar wherein the incident had happened. It is next submitted that the instant case is based on direct evidence of eye witnesses and therefore though the motive is not of any significance but the prosecution has been able to successfully prove that the deceased Badri executed a sale deed of his agriculture land admeasuring 7-8 Bighas in favour of P.W.1- Sher Singh and due to this his other sons including appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram were angry with him. The aforesaid sale deed in favour of P.W.1- Sher Singh is stated to have been executed on 18-19 of March, 2005, while the incident had occurred in its close proximity on 4.4.2005. It has been also proved that P.W.3- Dal Chand and P.W.8- Ram Autar were having litigation with a 1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES woman, named, Ram Kali who was claiming herself to be the wife of their uncle Bhikhari and was also demanding share in his land. The said litigation was pending in the revenue court. Therefore, there was sufficient motive and opportunity available to the appellants to commit the crime. It is further submitted that keeping in view the quality of evidence available on record, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants and therefore, no interference is warranted in the same and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the appellants as well as of learned AGA. Perusal of evidence available on record would reveal that P.W.1, namely, Sher Singh is the informant of the First Information Report. He has stated in his statement, recorded before the trial court, that in the night of the occurrence his father Badri Yadav was sleeping in the baggar(Room) along with Dal Chand and at some distance from him his sons Pushpendra and Manoj were sleeping on their cots, while he was sleeping on the roof of the house. He further stated that his father some days before the incident had executed a sale-deed of his land in his favour . He denied to have seen appellants committing the crime in the light of torch and the bulb lighting in the baggar. He stated that when he reached in the baggar, he did not see any one. He acknowledged to have lodged the FIR but in the same breath has stated that the FIR was lodged by him on the information provided by the villagers and he only put his signatures on the application which was not read over to him. After being declared hostile this witness denied to have given any statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. However, he has admitted that accused Gajram is a witness of sale deed executed in his favour and he is having very good relations with him. 17. P.W.2- Pushpendra, who is the son of P.W.1- Sher Singh has stated that on the fateful night he was sleeping in the baggar at some distance from the deceased. He denied to have any knowledge with regard to any litigation pending in between P.W.3- Dal Chand and Ram Kali and also that in this case parivi on behalf of Ram Kali was being done by the appellant- Ranjit. He also denied to have witnessed the crime being committed by the appellants as according to him there was complete darkness. He admitted that the incident occurred at about 12.00 O' clock in the night and P.W.3- Dal Chand as well as his brother Manoj was also lying in the ''baggar' along with deceased Badri Yadav. This witness after being declared hostile has denied to have given any statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C to the Investigating Officer. 18. P.W.3- Dal Chand is the injured witness of the case. He stated that on the night of the occurrence he was sleeping in the baggar with deceased Badri as they were very close friends. He after taking his dinner used to come to the house of Badri and used to have a talk with him about the village. This witness has further stated that some days before the incident, deceased Badri Yadav had executed a sale deed of his 7 bighas agricultural land in favour of P.W.2- Sher Singh and due to this other sons of Badri Yadav, namely, Lallu @ Lala Ram, Sarnam and Devi were angry with him. A litigation with Ram Kali, pertaining to the land of his uncle Bhikhari, was also pending in a revenue 1 All. Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. 1379 Court and appellant Ranjit was doing pairvi in that case on behalf of Ram Kali and he was also annoyed with him. Narrating the incident he has stated that at the time of incident a gobar gas bulb was lighting in the ''baggar' and two grand sons of Badri Yadav, namely, Pushpendra and Manoj were lying in the baggar at some distance from him. Sher Singh was sleeping on the roof of the house and he and Badri were lying on the ground of baggar. At about 12.00 O, clock in the night a gun shot was fired. He made an attempt to stand up, however, at the same time second Gun shot was fired which hit him in his chest. At the same time Sher Singh put on his ''Torch' from the roof and he in that light as well as in the light of the bulb of the Gobar gas saw Lallu @ Lala Ram as the person who was firing. He also saw that Ranjit of his village was assaulting Badri Yadav with a Banka and Lala Ram was having a country made pistol in his hand by which he fired at him and Badri Yadav. On a hue and cry made by them many villagers assembled at the scene of crime and the accused persons fled away from there. 19. P.W.4- Dr. V.K. Verma, who at the time of incident was posted as radiologist in District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri and had performed x-ray of the injured Dal Chand and prepared x-ray report on the basis of x-ray plates has proved X-ray report as Ext. Ka-2 and x-ray plates as material Ext. 1&2 and stated that in the x-ray of injured Dal Chand, heterogeneous opacity was found in the right lung. 20. P.W.5-Shri Shiv Ram Yadav was posted as Circle Officer, Police at the relevant point of time and stated to have recorded the statement of accused Gajram, Scribe of FIR Ganesh Chandra Pandey, Mahesh Chandra, S.I. Ram Autar Singh, Pushpendra. Manoj and Ram Autar. He also inspected the place of recovery of country made pistol and also prepared the site plan, Ext. Ka-3. He also stated to have recorded the statement of witness of inquest report and also of injured Dal Chand. He after recording statement of appellant Ranjit took him on Police custody remand and a ''Banka' has been recovered on his pointing out from a room of his house. This witness has proved the recovery memo of Banka as also the site plan of the place of recovery of Banka as Ext. Ka-4. 21. P.W.6- Dr. Akhilesh Khare, who was posted as a Medical Officer in District Hospital on 5.8.2005 is stated to have performed the postmortem on the same day at 3.00 P.M. on the body of the deceased Badri Yadav. He proved the postmortem report (Ext. Ka-6) to have been prepared in his hand writing and signatures . The details of the postmortem report has been elaborately given in paragraph 6 this judgment. He opined that death of the deceased Badri Yadav had occured due to excessive bleeding and shock due to ante-mortem injures and also that the injuries caused to Badri Yadav were caused by fire-arm and sharp-edged weapon like ''Banka'. 22. P.W.7- Dr. Rajendra Prasad has stated to have medically examined P.W.3- Dal Chand on 4.4.2005 at 5.45 A.M. who was brought to him by police constable Rajendra Prasad Yadav. He noticed one fire-arm injury of entry and one fire-arm wound of exit on his person and has proved the injury report (Ext. Ka-7) under his signatures and writing . According to him the above injuries were caused by 1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES fire-arm (country made pistol). Both the doctors, namely, P.W.6- Dr. Akhilesh Khare and P.W.7- Dr. Rajendra Prasad have stated that injuries on the person of deceased and injured might have been inflicted at 12.00 O' clock in the intervening night of 3-4.4.2005. Injury report of P.W.3-Dal Chand has been dealt with elaborately in para 7 of this judgment. 23. P.W.8- Ram Autar is stated to have heard a sound of gun shot fired at about 12.00 O' clock in the intervening night of 3-4.4.2005 and stated to have come out of his house and saw that appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram armed with country made pistol of .315 bore and appellant Ranjit armed with Banka were emerging out from the baggar of Badri Yadav. He claimed to have seen the appellants in the light of bulb which was lighting in the baggar. When he went in side he saw that Badri Yadav was lying dead after sustaining fire-arm and Banka injuries while his brother Dal Chand was lying in injured condition. He brought Dal Chand to the Police Station from a tractortrolley along with Sher Singh and Tule Ram and the FIR of the incident was lodged by P.W.1- Sher Singh . He also stated that Badri Yadav had executed a sale deed of his land in favour of his son Sher Singh and other sons of Badri Yadav including Lallu @ Lala Ram were angry with Badri Yadav on this score and a revenue case was also pending between Dal Chand and his aunt Ram Kali wherein appellant Ranjit was doing pairvi on behalf of Ram Kali. He also stated that one SubInspector of Police came to the place of occurrence after the incident and collected plain and blood stained soil and also inspected torch, ladder, Gobar gas apparatus from which a bulb was lighting and also that a memo of the above proceedings was prepared as Ext. Ka-8, Ka-9 and Ka-10. He also stated to be a witness of the recovery of a country made pistol of .315 bore and one empty and 2 live cartridges on the pointing out of appellant Lallu @ Lala Ram. He further stated to be a witness of the recovery of a Banka from the house of Ranjit at his pointing out and proved the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-11) prepared with regard to this recovery. 24. P.W.9- Head Constable Ram Prakash has proved the chick FIR and G.D. Kayami to be written in his hand writing as (Ext. Ka-12) and (Ext. Ka-13). 25. P.W.10- S.I. Ram Autar Singh has stated to have prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-14) of the body of Badri Yadav on the direction of the Station House Officer and also the necessary papers i.e. specimen seal (Ext. Ka-15), Chalan lash (Ext. Ka-16), photo lash (Ext. Ka-17), letter R.I. (Ext. Ka-118), letter C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-19) in his signatures and hand writing and also to have prepared the memo (Ext. Ka-8) of seizing blood stained and plain soil and piece of quilt and cushion. He also stated to have inspected the torch of Sher Singh, ladder, Gobar gas bulb and also to have prepared memo Ext. Ka-9 and Ext. Ka-10 in this respect. On being re-examined he proved material Ext, blood stained and plain soil, blood stained cushion and blood stained quilt as material Ext. No.s 3,4,5 and 6, respectively. 26. P.W.11- S.I. Ram Pradeep Yadav has stated that he prepared site plan of the place of occurrence on the pointing out of Sher Singh and proved the same as Exit. Ka-20 and also that the inquest report was prepared under his direction. He stated to have arrested the appellant Lallu @ Lala 1 All. Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. 1381 Ram and to have recovered one country made pistol, one empty and two live cartridges on his pointing. He also claimed to have prepared the recovery memo of country made pistol and cartridges. 27. P.W. 12- S.I. B.D. Arun has stated to have taken appellant Ranjit on police custody remand and a Banka is stated to have recovered on his pointing from a room of his house pertaining to which a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-11) was prepared by him. The ''Banka' has also been exhibited as material Ext. 7. 28. Having perused evidence available on record we are of the considered view that there cannot be any doubt in the proposition that Section 134 of Evidence Act does 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 "On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established : (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. (2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character. (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes. "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 into play. The 1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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.