Judgment JAGAT SINGH, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal filed under S. 374 (2) Cr. P. C. accused appellant Umed Singh has assailed the judgment and conviction dated 31-1-2001 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No. 30/99 by which he was convicted under S. 304, Part II, IPC and was awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. Similarly, under S. 323, IPC he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 only. # ( 2 ) THE charges against the accused appellant were that at about 2-30 p. m. on 2-9-1997 in village Jhardia in the house of deceased, Umed Singh accused came armed with a lathi and gave blows on the head of Datar Kanwar resulting which she fell down. Her younger sister PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar tried to intervene but she too was given lathi blow on her right hand and thereafter accused ran away. Injured Datar Kanwar was taken to Ladnu Hospital from where she was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where she was operated upon for the head injuries but died on 15-9-1997. However, Ex. P/1 written FIR was lodged at 6-00 p. m. on 2-9-1997 itself by PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar. Postmortem report was also conducted and after usual investigation the accused was challenged and charged under S. 302 as also S. 323, IPC. # ( 3 ) ACCUSED appellant denied all the charges and claimed trial, hence, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. In statement given under S. 313, Cr. P. C. accused appellant denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. Thereafter the learned trial Court after a threadbare assessment and analysis of the evidence held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforestated. # ( 4 ) THE submissions of Mr. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, were that the conviction has been maintained on the solitary evidence of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar. Another eye-witness according to FIR Ex. P/1 was PW-5 Antar Kanwar who has not supported the prosecution version and no other person residing in neighbourhood has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, on the uncorroborated solitary testimony of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar the conviction should not have been based. Another eye-witness according to FIR Ex. P/1 was PW-5 Antar Kanwar who has not supported the prosecution version and no other person residing in neighbourhood has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, on the uncorroborated solitary testimony of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar the conviction should not have been based. The another contention of the learned counsel was that there was single injury caused to deceased and that the accused was her brother-in-law also and being family member there was some altercation between the two and in the sudden quarrel and fight that injury was caused and that she expired 14 days thereafter and at the most accused could have been convicted under S. 325, IPC and not under S. 304, Part II, IPC. He is in custody since 19-9-1997 and may be sentenced for the period he has already undergone instead of seven years awarded by the trial Court. # ( 5 ) ON the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and conviction submitting that an empty handed Datar Kanwar was beaten to death without any provocation from her side and it was a cold blooded murder and the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced him. # ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. # ( 7 ) SO far as basing the conviction on the solitary testimony of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar is concerned, the Apex Court has time and again held that under the Indian Evidence Act no particular member or witnesses are required for the proof of any fact. It is a sound and well established Rule of Law that quality not quantity of evidence matters. Conviction can be based on sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence as the evidence is to be weighed not to be counted. Reference can be made to Ramratan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 424 , Masalti v. State of U. P. AIR 1965 SC 202 , Suresh v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 SC 1122 and Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A. P. (1999) 8 SCC 369 among others. # ( 8 ) WHAT is to be seen is this that whether PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar is a wholly reliable witness or not and whether her testimony needs corroboration from direct or indirect evidence. # ( 9 ) EX. # ( 8 ) WHAT is to be seen is this that whether PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar is a wholly reliable witness or not and whether her testimony needs corroboration from direct or indirect evidence. # ( 9 ) EX. P/1 FIR of the occurrence was lodged immediately after the occurrence at 6. 00 p. m. on 2-9-1997 in which detailed version of the prosecution story is mentioned by PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar. In the Court deposition also PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar has proved Ex. P/1 and could not be contradicted by any portion of it. However, by her police statement Ex. D/1 she could be contradicted to some extent. Nowhere it has been written either in Ex. P/1 or Ex. D/1 that Umed Singh accused came in the room where deceased and this witness was present and told them "raando, I Teach You Lesson" and thereafter he went to fetch the lathi. Even assuming that the witness may have exaggerated to some extent, the above theory that by itself will not damage her testimony with regard to fact that the accused gave lathi blow on the head of Datar Kanwar. It seems that the accused came armed from the very beginning or picked from the place of occurrence. Be that as it may, PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar has been cross-examined at length which was consistent throughout and she could not be contradicted in material particular either by her police statement Ex. D/1 or by FIR Ex. P/1 lodged by her. The trial Court has rightly held her of sterling worth. Testimony of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar has been corroborated even by PW-2 Ugam Singh who was a hostile witness. Though he could not support the prosecution version fully yet upon cross-examination by Public Prosecutor he admitted that there was quarrel between Dewar and Bhabhi and that police recovered a lathi in his presence from the custody of accused. # ( 10 ) PW-4 Rajesh Kanwar is 15 years old daughter of deceased. Her presence on the site was natural because the occurrence took place in their own residential house. She has also stated on oath that when her mother and mausi Bhanwar Kanwar were in the room and were talking with each other Umed Singh came and abused them. Umed Singh took a lathi lying there and inflicted injuries on the head of her mother as also at some other place. She has also stated on oath that when her mother and mausi Bhanwar Kanwar were in the room and were talking with each other Umed Singh came and abused them. Umed Singh took a lathi lying there and inflicted injuries on the head of her mother as also at some other place. When mausi Bhanwar Kanwar tried to intervene she too was given a blow. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial affecting her testimony could be elicited out of it though she has been contradicted to some extent from her police statement Ex. D/3 with regard to the fact that instead of lathi accused took a Eis (wooden stick) of cot. No other portion could be contradicted, therefore, this witness has also supported the prosecution version. # ( 11 ) PW. 5 Antar Kanwar has also been examined but declared hostile but she has admitted that Datar Kanwar has died. It seems that being close relative of deceased and the accused Antar Kanwar may not have sided either side. Be that as it may simply because Antar Kanwar has not supported the case that by itself will not damage the testimonial value of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar and PW-4 Rajesh Kanwar. # ( 12 ) PW. 7 Dr. G. S. Rathore has also corroborated the ocular version given by these two witnesses who immediately examined the injuries found on the person of Datar Kanwar and prepared injury memo Ex. P/4 and found lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep in the middle of top of scalp. This witness has also examined the injuries of PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar and prepared her injury report Ex. P/5 and found multiple fine abrasion of varying size over anterior aspect of right fore-arm and different swelling of varying size over various aspect of right middle 1/3 of right fore-arm. Though this witness has also been examined at length but withstood the test of cross-examination. # ( 13 ) PW. 8 Dr. Achal Sharma was Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery of SMS Hospital, Jaipur who conducted the operation of Datar Kanwar and has proved that there was haematoma on the right temporo frontal parietal area and there was fracture of temporo parietal bone. The patient was admitted vide Ex. P/6 and operation notes were Ex. P/7. 8 Dr. Achal Sharma was Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery of SMS Hospital, Jaipur who conducted the operation of Datar Kanwar and has proved that there was haematoma on the right temporo frontal parietal area and there was fracture of temporo parietal bone. The patient was admitted vide Ex. P/6 and operation notes were Ex. P/7. In operation he removed the haematoma but there was swelling in the brain from prior to the operation resulting which infraction was caused to the brain and she subsequently died due to it. # ( 14 ) PW-11 Dr. M. L. Kawat is the person who conducted autopsy on the dead body and has proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/17. He too cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be elicited out of it affecting his testimonial value. # ( 15 ) LATHI was also recovered upon the voluntary disclosure statement given by the accused and was seized and sealed there and then and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide receipt Ex. P/14. There is another corroborative piece of evidence against the accused. The accused was put under arrest on 19-9-1997 vide arrest memo Ex. P/8. He gave two voluntary disclosure statements under S. 27 of the Evidence Act on 20-9-1997 which are Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/10 and got the lathi recovered in presence of Mool Singh and Ugam Singh on the same day vide seizure memo Ex. P/12 which was sealed there and then. This recovery was proved by PW-10 Chandra Singh Station House Officer who withstood the test of cross-examination at length. Out of attesting witnesses PW-2 Ugam Singh was examined who, though hostile, has stated that police got a lathi recovered in his presence from the accused and got his thumb impression affixed on the seizure memo. The above lathi in sealed condition was kept in malkhana by PW-6 Jassaram Head Moharir and thereafter on 6-10-1997 it was sent to the FSL through Sukharam Constable. It was received in FSL with seals intact which is evident from the FSL report Ex. P/24 and this lathi was found to be having blood of human origin. In his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. accused appellant could not explain satisfactorily how lathi contained the human blood. It was received in FSL with seals intact which is evident from the FSL report Ex. P/24 and this lathi was found to be having blood of human origin. In his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. accused appellant could not explain satisfactorily how lathi contained the human blood. # ( 16 ) ALL these documentary and oral evidence have been relied upon by trial Court and upon reappreciation, analysis and assessment of the evidence I am of the view that accused has been rightly convicted under S. 304, Part II, IPC and uphold the conviction. # ( 17 ) SO far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the plea of learned counsel was that the accused is in custody since 19-9-1997 and he may be sentenced for the period he has already undergone. Learned counsel submitted that even the Apex Court in a spate of judgments has awarded by and large five years imprisonment for offence under S. 304, Part II, IPC. He being a family member of the deceased may be considered sympathetically. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed it. # ( 18 ) IN my view also punishment shall be commensurate to the crime. Even if a crime is committed with a close member of the family that by itself will not be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Misguided leniency encourages a criminal and the society suffers and plea for reduction in view of delay or accused having married and settled was not found to be tenable ground by the Apex Court for an offence under S. 307, IPC vide judgment in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 686, Chinnadurai v. State of T. N. Sentencing requires great care and caution. Law provides the maximum and minimum terms of punishments and the Courts have been vested with wide powers and discretion to select the proper term and quantum of punishment for the offender keeping in view the gravity of crime, circumstances of committing it, harm caused to the victim, age and previous conduct of culprit. # ( 19 ) IN the matter at hand the accused who was a distant Dewar of deceased attacked her with a lathi causing grievous injuries on her head and vital parts without any provocation from her side. # ( 19 ) IN the matter at hand the accused who was a distant Dewar of deceased attacked her with a lathi causing grievous injuries on her head and vital parts without any provocation from her side. She was unarmed and was not in a position to harm the accused in any way and when PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar intervened she too was given two lathi blows. The above conduct of the accused was not such which mitigates the circumstances in his favour. The trial Court has already been benevolent towards him and has convicted him under S. 304, Part-II, IPC instead of S. 302, IPC. No appeal by the State challenging that judgment has been filed, therefore, I have to uphold the conviction. Seven years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000. 00 awarded to the accused-appellant is not excessive by any standard. The Apex Court in Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa, (2000) 9 SCC 1 , has awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. 00 in an offence under S. 304, Part-II, IPC. Similarly, the Apex Court in Kalinder Bharik v. State of H. P. , 2000 SCC (Cri) 96, and in Jagroop Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1552 : (1981 Cri LJ 1136), has awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine in an offence under S. 304, Part II, IPC. Though by and large in a catena of judgments the Honble Apex Court may have awarded five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine yet that depends upon the facts and circumstances involved in each case. In the matter at hand an unarmed helpless lady was given vital blows by lathi on her head without any provocation to the accused and when her sister PW-1 Bhanwar Kanwar tried to intervene she too was given lathi blows. Therefore, I do not find any valid and sufficient reasons to interfere in the quantum of sentence also which is also uphold. However, the fine, if realised, be paid to the husband of deceased who may have spent a substantial amount in the treatment of the deceased. # ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.