Krishna Gopal vs State of U.P.

Shrikant Tripathi, J.—The Appellant Krishna Gopal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.3.1982 rendered by Sri O. P. Jain, the then I Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in S.T. No. 509 of 1980, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the Appellant u/s 324, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years.

The facts leading to this appeal are that the marriage of Kamlesh, who is the daughter of the sister of the complainant Amar Singh, was settled with the Appellant, without any dowry and Re. 1 was to be given as a token money by way of the dowry. But the Appellant, after the engagement, desired to have a motor cycle in the dowry. The injured Devram Singh, who is the son of the complainant, took active part in managing the affairs of the marriage and opposed the demand of the Appellant, consequently the Appellant could not get the motor cycle, due to which he developed a grudge against the injured Devram Singh. On 3.5.1980, the injured Devram Singh had gone to Dhampur for learning typewriting. At about 9 a.m. on that day, the Appellant Krishna Gopal alongwith the co-accused Bhupendra Singh approached the injured Devram Singh in the National Commercial Type Service. On the request of the Appellant, the injured Devram Singh accompanied him for shopping in the market. After some purchases, on the request of the injured Devram Singh, the Appellant and co-accused Bhupendra Singh alias Bhoja decided to go to the house of the injured Devram Singh. Accordingly they proceeded for the village of the injured Devram Singh, but before proceeding there, they witnessed a cinema show at Dhampur in the evening show from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and thereafter they went to the village of the injured on two different cycle. When they reached near kanjar wala kuan in Sherkot, they met the witnesses Roop Chand and Karan Singh, who are uncle of the injured Devram Singh. After some talk with the said witnesses, the injured, Appellant and co-accused proceeded for the village of the injured. When they reached near the grove of one Anwar, the Appellant asked the injured Devram Singh to stop as he was having pain in stomach. The injured Devram Singh stopped his cycle. After that, the Appellant said that the injured Devram Singh provided a hurdle on his way of getting a motor cycle in the marriage and due to that he would teach a lesson to him. The Appellant Krishna Gopal, on the exhortation given by the co-accused Bhupendra alias Bhoja, assaulted the injured Devram Singh with a country made pistol, consequently the injured sustained fire arm injuries. On hearing the shouts, the witnesses Karan Singh and Roop Chand, who were at some distance behind the injured, arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. The complainant lodged the F.I.R. at the police station concerned and the police proceeded to make investigation. The injured Devram Singh was medically examined by Dr. R. B. Saxena on the same day at about 23.25 hours. An X-ray of the left shoulder, back and face of the injured Devram Singh was also done in the District Hospital, Bijnor by Dr. S. M. Lal. The Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant and co-accused Bhupendra alias Bhoja. The Appellant and co-accused were charged u/s 307, I.P.C. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Dr. S. M. Lal proved the X-ray plates Exts. Ka-4 to 6 and X-ray reports. He has deposed that two big radio opaque shadows near the chin and neck and back of the injured Devram Singh were found on X-ray. These shadows were due to presence of pellets. P.W. 2 Amar Singh is the father of the injured Devram Singh. He is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He has proved the F.I.R. P.W. 3 Devram Singh is the injured. He has supported the prosecution story. P.W. 4 Roop Chand happens to be an eye-witness of the occurrence, has supported the prosecution story during the examination-in-chief but resiled during the cross-examination from his statements recorded during the examination-in-chief and did not support the prosecution story. P.W. 5 Ambey Sharan Gupta is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 Hari Singh was posted as Head Moharrir at the police station Sherkot. These two witnesses have adduced the evidence of formal nature. P.W. 7 Dr. R. B. Saxena has proved the fire arm injuries sustained by the injured. According to this witness, the injuries sustained by the injured Devram Singh were simple and could have been caused at the time and place alleged in the F.I.R. He has further proved the injury report Ex. Ka-9.

The accused have not adduced any evidence in defence.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the testimony of the injured Devram Singh duly corroborated by the medical evidence was believable and sufficient to record a valid conviction against the Appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that non-examination of witnesses Piarey Singh and Balbir Singh were not fatal in view of the fact that they were not material witnesses and they had merely informed the father of the injured regarding the incident and had not seen the occurrence.

The learned lower court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, was of the view that no charge u/s 307, I.P.C. was made out against the Appellant. The facts, as proved by the prosecution, made out merely a case u/s 324, I.P.C. The Appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced u/s 324, I.P.C. The co-accused Bhupendra Singh alias Bhoja was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Appellant did not dispute the correctness of the finding of guilt recorded by the learned lower court against the Appellant and contended that the occurrence had taken place as back as in the year 1980 and since then about 29 years have elapsed and as such it is not proper to impose the sentence of imprisonment against the Appellant, specially when the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. is punishable with fine also. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Bishan Singh and Anr. v. State AIR 2007 SC 6291: 2008 (1) ACR 570 (SC), and submitted that in that case the Apex Court, in similar situation, quashed the sentence of imprisonment and imposed merely the sentence of fine.

In this case, the learned lower court has believed the solitary statement of the injured Devram Singh (P.W. 3) on the ground that the medical evidence has fully corroborated his statement, which could not be shaken despite cross-examination at length. In my opinion, solitary statement of the injured, duly corroborated with medical evidence was sufficient to record a conviction against the Appellant.

In our judicial system, emphasis is laid on the quality and not the quantity of the evidence for proving or disproving a fact. As a general rule, Courts can and may act on the testimony of a solitary witness even without corroboration. A single trustworthy witness outweighs the testimony of number of the witnesses of indifferent character. What is required in law, is to scrutinise the testimony of the witness and if on such scrutiny his evidence is found reliable, probable and trustworthy, the evidence of the solitary evidence can be made as the basis for recording a valid conviction. This view has been fully settled by the Apex Court in the cases of Chuhar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150: 2007 (2) ACR 1522 (SC) ; Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar, Chittar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, and Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani and Others Vs. State of Karnataka,

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also very elaborately dealt with the impact of non-examination of the witnesses Piarey Singh and Balbir Singh and arrived at the conclusion that their non-examination was not fatal to the prosecution case. This finding also seems to be perfectly correct and requires no interference. It is well-settled that it is the duty of the Court to assess intrinsic worth of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and if their evidence appears to be truthful, reliable and acceptable mere fact that some other witnesses have not been examined, they would not adversely affect the prosecution case. This proposition has been propounded in the case of Pohlu v. State of Haryana (2005) 10 SCC 196: 2006 (1) ACR 906 (SC).

In view of the fact that the learned Counsel for the Appellant has not pressed the appeal in regard to the conviction of the Appellant u/s 324, I.P.C. and also in view of the fact that the learned lower court has properly appreciated the evidence in this regard and arrived at the correct conclusion, I do not find any force in this appeal, so far as the conviction of the Appellant Krishna Gopal u/s 324, I.P.C. is concerned.

In regard to the quantum of punishment, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant has sufficient merit. The Appellant is not a habitual criminal. The occurrence in question took place on account of a personal grudge developed by the Appellant against the injured due to the reason that the injured had taken active part in denying the delivery of motor cycle to the Appellant at the time of his marriage. Moreover, the occurrence had taken place as back as in the year 1980 and since then more than 29 years have elapsed and as such it does not appear to be proper to impose the sentence of imprisonment on the Appellant.

It may not be out of context to mention that the offence u/s 324, I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. In this way, only sentence of fine can be validly imposed on a person convicted u/s 324, I.P.C. It is, thus, proper to impose the punishment of fine only instead of the sentence of imprisonment on the Appellant.

The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant Krishna Gopal u/s 324, I.P.C. is confirmed. The sentence of seven years'' rigorous imprisonment imposed on the Appellant Krishna Gopal is set aside. The Appellant Krishna Gopal is sentenced u/s 324, I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The I Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor is directed to make compliance of this order and submit compliance report within two months.