JUDGMENT I. P. Singh, J. 1. Kewala Shanker, convict-appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri M. M. H. Siddiqui, Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, dated 4-11-1977 passed in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1977 convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life. 2. Aditya Nath, complainant PW 1, Kewala Shanker, appellant, late Mata Sewak and Phool Chand are real brothers, being sons of Ram Chandra. Smt.Suraj Kali, PW 3, is the mother of the said four brothers. Smt. Malti Devi, deceased, was the wife of Aditya Nath, PW 1. Smt.Sonpati, PW 4, is the widow of Mata Sewak. All these persons live in one house in village Kedarpur, P. S. Gopi Ganj, Varanasi. Aditya Nath, complainant PW 1, used to live in Calcutta. His wife, the deceased, used to live in the village. She used to look after the Cultivation of her husband. Ram Karan was her harwaha (labourer servant). The prosecution case is that on 10-7-1976 at about 6.30 a.m. Smt.Malti Devi, deceased, had gone to her Gorwar (where the cattle were tied in the field) to give fodder to her bullocks. The appellant told her that Ram Karan, harwaha, would plough his field that day. Smt.Malti Devi objected to it and did not agree to send her barwaha, Ram Karan, to plough the field of the appellant. Ram Karan would not go to the field of the appellant presumably without the permission of Smt.Malti Devi. The appellant started abusing Ram Karan. Smt.Malti Devi, deceased, protested against the said abuses to Ram Karan. Still the appellant insisted that Ram Karan would go to plough his field. The appellant uprooted the peg (Khoonta) from there and gave blows to Smt.Malti Devi. She fell down unconscious. Lateron she was removed to hospital Jangiganj from where she was directed to be taken to the hospital at Varanasi. 3. She was medically examined on 11-7-1976 at 11.30 a.m. Dr. R. M. Srivastava, Medical Officer, S.S.P.G. Hospital Varanasi. She was found to have on her person one stitched wound 2 cm long (3 stitches) on left side head 6 cm above left eye-brow. She was also found to have another stitched wound 3 cm (2 stitches) on left side head 10 cm above the left ear. R. M. Srivastava, Medical Officer, S.S.P.G. Hospital Varanasi. She was found to have on her person one stitched wound 2 cm long (3 stitches) on left side head 6 cm above left eye-brow. She was also found to have another stitched wound 3 cm (2 stitches) on left side head 10 cm above the left ear. In the opinion of the doctor, these injuries were about one day old and were caused by some blunt object. She was in a semi-conscious state. Lateron she expired in the said hospital on 23-7-1976 at 7.45 p.m. Her post-mortem examination was conducted on 24-7-76 at 3.35 p.m. by Doctor I. D. Misra, PW 6 Superintendent, S.S.P.G. Hospital, Varanasi. The following ante-mortem injures were found on her person : 1. Freshly healed stitches scar 2 cms long and 6 cms above the left eye brow on left side of forehead. 2. Infested, lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 1/2 cms x bone deep over left parietal 10 cm above the left ear. Internal examination revealed contusion 5 cms x 3 cms under the external injury No. 2. There was a fracture of left temporal bone extending upto tempory- parietal seeture. Brain was pressed on left side (parietal region) clue to haemotoma. There was also fracture of middle cranial fossa extending from left parietal to the sphenoid bone. Clotted blood was present in the middle cranial fossa. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to the fracture of skull with subdural haematoma pressing over the brain. In his opinion the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 4. Aditya Nath, PW 1, was informed at Calcutta about the serious condition of his wife Smt.Malti Devi. So he came home and lodged FIR dated 17-7-1976 at P. S. Gopiganj, Gyanpur, Varanasi, to the effect that on 11-7-1976, Kewala Shankar, appellant, beat Smt.Malti Devi and turned her out of the house. She was beaten to such an extent that she was lying unconscious ever since in hospital at Varanasi. The appellant's defence is that there happened to be a dispute between him and his brother, Phool Chand. Both started wielding lathis agairst each other. Smt.Malti Devi tried to intervene and in that course she received hurts of the lathis blows of Phool Chand. However, no evidence was led in defence. 5. The appellant's defence is that there happened to be a dispute between him and his brother, Phool Chand. Both started wielding lathis agairst each other. Smt.Malti Devi tried to intervene and in that course she received hurts of the lathis blows of Phool Chand. However, no evidence was led in defence. 5. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined in all 10 witnesses including Aditya Nath, complainant PW 1, the maker of the FIR, Smt.Suraj Kali PW 3 the mother of the appellant and Smt.Sonpati, PW 4, widowed Bhawaj of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating evidence and circumstances of the case convicted and sentenced the appellant as already mentioned above. 6. According to the respective cases of the parties, Smt.Malti Devi had received the hurts on her head (which was found on her person by the doctor, as discussed above) by wielding of a blunt weapon. According to the prosecution, these hurts were caused by the appellant with a khoonta, while, according to the defence, she received these injuries from the lathi blows of Phool Chand when the lathi fight was going on between the appellant and Phool Chand. As already mentioned above, the defence has not led any evidence in support of his version. But this automatically would not lead to the conclusion that the prosecution version is proved. The prosecution has to establish their case on the strength of their own evidence. To discharge this burden, the prosecution relies on the evidence of Suraj Kali, PW 3 and Sonpati, PW 4. Apparently, Aditya Nath PW 1 was not present at the time of occurrence and he came lateron and lodged the FIR on 17-7-1976, probably, on the basis of whatever information he could gather. For these reasons, we do not feel justified in attaching any importance to the facts mentioned in the said FIR leading to the injuries suffered by Smt.Malti Devi. 7. Smt. Suraj Kali, PW 3, has stated that she was at her house, busy in sorting the neem-seeds. Her attention was drawn to the place of occurrence by the shouts and noises she heard. That noise came from the field. She went there and found her daughter-in-law SMT. Malti Devi lying unconscious on the ground. She is, therefore, not an eye-witness of the actual occurrence. She only says that SMT. Malti Devi was lying unconscious in the field. Her attention was drawn to the place of occurrence by the shouts and noises she heard. That noise came from the field. She went there and found her daughter-in-law SMT. Malti Devi lying unconscious on the ground. She is, therefore, not an eye-witness of the actual occurrence. She only says that SMT. Malti Devi was lying unconscious in the field. That perhaps fixes that the incident took place there. 8. Sonpati, PW 4, as already mentioned above, is the widow of Mata Sewak and is the real bhawaj of both the appellant and Aditya Nath, complainant PW 1. She, therfore, is equally related to them. She stated that Smt. Malti Devi was her jethani and that their gorwar (place of tying the cattle) was in their field. The distance of this field of gorwar is 50 paces from her house. She has admitted in her cross-examination that at the date of occurrence she was inside her house preparing tea. In her examination-in- chief, she admitted that Smt. Malti Devi had left the house to give fodder to the cattle. It appears that Ram Karan (harwaha) had also left in her presence to the Gorwar to take the plough to the field. Smt. Sonpati in her examination-in-chief has narrated certain events which happened at the Gorwar. She stated that there the appellant wanted Ram Karan to plough his field but when Ram Karan refused, he went to the extent of warning Ram Karan, Harwaha, that he would not let him take the plough to the field of Aditya Nath or for that matter, of his wife Smt. Malti Devi. She added that as Rani Karan would not agree to take the plough to the field of the appellant, so the appellant started abusing Ram Karan. Smt. Malti Devi objected to the said abuses and insisted that Ram Karan would not take the plough to his field. It is in her statement that her attention was drawn to the place of occurrence after hearing the noises of the abuses. If it was so, we do not believe her what she stated above regarding the events which took plate in the form of talks, whereby the appellant was insisting that Ram Karan should take the plough to his field while Ram Karan, or for that matter, Smt. Malti Devi was not agreeing. If it was so, we do not believe her what she stated above regarding the events which took plate in the form of talks, whereby the appellant was insisting that Ram Karan should take the plough to his field while Ram Karan, or for that matter, Smt. Malti Devi was not agreeing. At any rate, we have no doubt in our minds that Smt. Son Pati being within audible distance was in a position to hear the abuses and noise and after hearing them, she came out of her house. The site-plan shows that her house is towards north while the field where the cattle were tied is towards south and there is no obstruction in between. Accordingly, she could be in a position to see things happening in the field even from outside the door of her house. She stated in her examination-in-chief that it was the appellant who uprooted the peg from there and gave its blows on the head of Smt. Malti Devi. According to her, Ram Karan was also there and it was on his intervention that the appellant stopped assaulting Smt. Malti Devi. She further stated that the injured head of Smt. Malti Devi was then tied up with a cloth. She stuck to the above description of the above assault even in her cross-examination. She denied the suggestion of the defence that in fact Phool Chand and the appellant had fallen out and Smt. Malti Devi received injuries when she tried to intervene. As already seen above, she stands equally related to both, namely the appellant and Aditya Nath, the complainant (husband of the deceased). Evidently, there should be some patent reason why she should wrongly side Aditya Nath, complainant, and oppose the appellant. Apparently nothing has come in her cross-examination by way of her preference to appear for the prosecution and oppose the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant who has tried to shatter the veracity of this testimony has argued that she has admitted coming to court on the date of her statement with Aditya Nath complainant and her mother-in-law Smt. Suraj Kali, PW 3 and this circumstance is interpreted by him to indicate that she was under their influence, and, most probably, was tutored to deposition that particular manner. We are, however, not impressed by this argument. It is in evidence that entire family lived in one house. We are, however, not impressed by this argument. It is in evidence that entire family lived in one house. Aditya Nath was mostly absent as he lived at Calcutta. It was therefore clear that she was living with the appellant and her mother-in-law in that house alongwith other brother, Phool Chand, and in the circumstances, no tutoring could be done by her mother-in-law or Aditya Nath, when he came from Calcutta at their house. The mere circumstance that she accompanied them to the court would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she was tutored by them. To us, her statement appears to be a natural one and she was a probable witness of the occurrence. We have no reason to disbelieve her testimony. 9. Learned counsel has next argued that two witnesses, namely, Phool Chand and Ram Karan, have not been examined by the prosecution. They are said by Smt. Son Pati PW 4 to be present at the time of occurrence, yet they had been withheld by the prosecution. Accordingly, an adverse presumption should be drawn against the prosecution. Smt. Son Pati, PW 4, has stated in her examination-in-chief that Ram Karan had left her job as harwaba (field labourer) and had gone home and was under the influence of the appellant and he would not depose for the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she stated that she thought Ram Karan to have gone under the influence of the appellant from the bare circumstance that he left her service as harwaha. That inference may or may not be drawn but she has categorically stated in her cross-examination-in-chief that Ram Karan would -not support the prosecution. As regards Phool Chand, she stated that about four months prior to the date of her evidence in the Court at about 4 p.m, Phool Chand, Aditya Nath and Baleshwar Nath s/o Aditya Nath were sitting at their house, when the appellant threatened Phool Chand warning him ol dire consequences. She stated that ever since Phool Chand left the house saying that he was going to Calcutta but his whereabouts were not known. There it no reason to doubt the above statements of Smt. Son Pati, PW 4. Under the circumstances, we are not prepared to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution for not producing Phool Chand and Ram Karan. 10. There it no reason to doubt the above statements of Smt. Son Pati, PW 4. Under the circumstances, we are not prepared to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution for not producing Phool Chand and Ram Karan. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly argued that the fate of the appellant should not be decided on the solitary evidence of Smt. Son Pati, PW 4, which stands uncorroborated from any other quarter. However, the solitary testimony of Smt.Son Pati, PW 4, finds corroboration from the medical evidence. To our mind, not number of the witnesses but the quality of evidence of even single witness matters. Smt. Son Pati, PW 4, inspires full confidence and we have no hesitation in saying that prosecution has succeeded in proving their case beyond any shadow of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant in the end argued that the fact of the appellant in question was out come of sudden provocation on the spot and there was no intention to kill Smt.Malti Devi and, as such, the offence, if any, would not fall under Section 302 IPC but might fall under Section 308 IPC. Section 300 IPC defines murder as such :- "300. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act, by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and committs such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 11. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had given at least two blows, which means repeated blows on the head of Smt. Malti Devi which was vital part of her body and had actually caused hurts to her which involved fracture of temporal bone. 11. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had given at least two blows, which means repeated blows on the head of Smt. Malti Devi which was vital part of her body and had actually caused hurts to her which involved fracture of temporal bone. He, therefore, can atleast be ascribed intention to cause such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause her death; or atleast to have intention of causing such bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He, therefore, is clearly guilty of offence of murder. There has been awarded minimum sentence prescribed under law. We see no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 12. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out his sentence. He shall be taken into custody forthwith. Appeal dismissed.