Short Note : 1. On 16-5-1974 at about 8-00 a.m. there was an exchange of abuse between the appellant and Hukumsingh (P.W.1), (the injured). It was in this context that at about 10-00 a.m., while Hukumsingh (P.W.1) in the company of his servants Nanhu (P.W.2), Sukul alias Suklal (P.W.3) Jiyalal (P.W.4) and Nanhibai (P.W.6) standing on a machine was threshing tuar, the appellant by means of a muzzle-loading gun shot at him standing behind a thorn fencing enclosing the barn of Kasturibai. No sooner had the pellet hit Hukumsingh then Hukumsingh fell down from his machine. In the meantime, the appellant with the gun took to heels. Bleeding from his wounds and in the process staining his baniyan and towel which he was putting on with his blood Hukumsingh in a bullock cart went to the police station at Shahganj at a distance of three kilometres and lodged the first information report at 11-00 a.m. Held : It is no doubt true that Nanhu (P.W.2), Suklal (P.W.3), Jiyalal (P.W.4) and Nanhibai (P.W.6), who according to Hukumsingh (P.W.1) were assisting him in threshing operations of tuar in Kasturibai's barn had assumed role hostile to the prosecution as a consequence of which the prosecutor was allowed to put to each of them the questions under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act which could otherwise be permitted to be put only in a cross-examination. But, only this fact does not altogether efface their evidence. Their evidence is usable in the trial if it be corroborated by other independent evidence. (See, Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 202). 2. It is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of the evidence which counts. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a case. (See, section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act). 3. Having found that the appellant has been rightly found guilty of crime punishable under section 307 I.P.C., the question for decision remaining is about the sentence. On the date of the incident the appellant was aged about 21 years. He was a student and has his entire life before him. In these circumstances I find that the term of rigorous imprisonment of ten years is harsh indeed. It is reduced to five years. Appeal partly allowed.