M. C. JAIN, J. The appellant is one Vinod Kumar who is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9-12-1980 passed by Sri Brahma Kishore, the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 1978, convicting him under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The incident took place on 19-11-1977 at about 8 p. m. in Mohalla Roshanganj, District Firozabad. The FIR was lodged by PW- 1 Bengali the same night at 9. 30 p. m. at the concerned police station the distance of which was about 4 furlongs from the sight of occurrence. The injured of the felony was PW-2 Ratan Lal. He had gone to drink milk at the shop of his elder brother PW-4 Suresh Chand. While returning, when he reached the road on the turning of lane in Mohalla Roshanganj, the appellant caught hold of him and hurling abuses held out that he would kill him as he had beaten up his father. Ratan Lal injured shouted attracting his father PW-1 Bengali, elder brother PW-4 Suresh Chand PW-3 Babu Lal and others. Vinod Kumar appellant gave two knife blows in the stomach of Ratan Lal causing serious injuries to him. On being challenged, he made his escape good. Being serious injured Ratan Lal was admitted in the hospital and his father lodged the FIR. 3. The medical examination of injured Ratan Lal was conducted by PW-5 Dr. R. K. Gupta in S. N. M. Hospital, Firozabad the same night at 8. 40 p. m. Thereafter he was then referred to S. N. Hospital, Agra where he was admitted and remained there for treatment for 18 days. The following injuries were found on his person : (1) Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side abdomen 7 cm above umbilicus. Margins clean cut, omentum and intestines loop coming out. (2) Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm x cavity deep on left side of abdomen 2 cm left to the mid line just below the coastal margins. Intestines coming out. 4. He was in semi conscious condition with haematosis and vomiting. The injuries were kept under observation and had been caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration of the injuries was fresh. 5. The investigation in the case was conducted by PW-6 SIRC Awasthi. 6. The defence was of denial. Intestines coming out. 4. He was in semi conscious condition with haematosis and vomiting. The injuries were kept under observation and had been caused by sharp edged weapon. Duration of the injuries was fresh. 5. The investigation in the case was conducted by PW-6 SIRC Awasthi. 6. The defence was of denial. The appellant denied his presence or participation in the incident and stated that he had been falsely implicated owing to enmity. He examined DW-1 Ram Prasad who had taken the injured to the hospital and DW-2 B. K. Agarwal, Assistant in the office of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Firozabad. 7. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses. PW-1 Bengali, PW-2 Ratan Lal injured PW-3 Babu Lal and PW-4 Suresh Chand were examined as eye-witnesses out of whom PW-2 Ratan Lal was himself the injured of the felony. 8. I have heard Sri R. K. Shangloo, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned AGA in opposition thereof. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that PW-1 Bengali and PW-4 Suresh Chand having not been accepted to be the eye-witness by the Court below and PW-3 Babu Lal having turned hostile, the case wholly rested on the testimony of PW-2 Ratan Lal which was not sufficient to warrant conviction ; that Murari who intervened, was not produced. Support has also been sought to be derived to back the appeal by the testimony of DW-1 Ram Prasad and DW-2 B. K. Agarwal which I intend to refer a little later. 9. Indeed, on judicial appraisal of the evidence, the Court below took the correct view that PW-1 Bengali and PW-4 Suresh Chand (father and brother respectively of the injured) could not reach the spot in time to witness the actual assault themselves. It was clear from the testimony of PW-1 Bengali that Ratan Lal had already been stabbed before he had reached the spot. For PW-4 Suresh Chand also there was no enough time to reach the spot on hearing shouts of Ratan Lal and to see the accused giving two knife blows to him. But the factum of their having not witnessed the actual assault did not make any dent in the prosecution case at all, having regard to the testimony of the injured, namely, PW-2 Ratan Lal and other attending circumstances. But the factum of their having not witnessed the actual assault did not make any dent in the prosecution case at all, having regard to the testimony of the injured, namely, PW-2 Ratan Lal and other attending circumstances. His statement alone sufficiently proved that it was the accused who gave him knife blows causing two incised wounds on his abdomen (vital part ). It has also to be kept in mind that it is a case of single accused and the possibility of false implication is completely ruled out. It would be too preposterous to presume that the injured would give a clean chit to the real assailant and substitute the accused for him. The injured had been attacked by the accused from close range with a knife and had grappled with him. He was known to him from before also. Thus there was no question of any mistaken identity of the assailant (accused ). 10. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that there was complete darkness at the spot because of the break down of electricity is not acceptable. It deserves mention that when the accused could spot out his target to cause the incised wounds to him on his vital part, the latter could have also no difficulty in correctly identifying his assailant whom he very well knew from before. I am of the opinion that the testimony of DW-2 B. K. Agarwal, a clerk in the office of Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Firozabad regarding failure of electric supply on the date of incident between 20. 05 hrs. and 20. 45 hrs. has rightly been discarded by the Court below. He did not know as to who had scribed the entry in this behalf that he professed to prove in the register. It was also not made in his presence. The entry did not bear any signature. That was the last entry on the concerned page. All the entries excepting this one being last on the page were signed. The witness went out of his way and stated that the said entry was written by Damodar Das, because Damodar Das was shown to be on duty at that time. Obviously, the best evidence could have been that of Damodar Das or some other Junior Engineer who could have testified about the actual failure of electricity at that time. The witness went out of his way and stated that the said entry was written by Damodar Das, because Damodar Das was shown to be on duty at that time. Obviously, the best evidence could have been that of Damodar Das or some other Junior Engineer who could have testified about the actual failure of electricity at that time. The register also did not bear the seal of any Government office or officer under whose authority it was being maintained. It was not on any printed or prescribed form. The first page showed that it was the log book of Sub-Station Asfabad. There was no evidence to show that this sub-station covered the entire town of Firozabad. Further, the entry, copy of which was proved as Ext. Kha, 1 showed that the electric supply had failed from Sub-Station Nosha. There was nothing to show that Sub-Station Nosha was also covered under Sub-Station Asfabad or it was a separate Sub-Station by itself and whether the entire town of Firozabad was controlled by Asfabad or by Nosha. He admitted that he was working in that office only for the last year. Apparently, he could have no personal knowledge of the electricity failure on 19-11-1977, his evidence having been recorded on 4-12-1980. The defence unnecessarily attempted to create doubt about availability of light at the time of incident by producing this witness who could not withstand the cross- examination and judicial scrutiny. Truth of the matter was that there could not be least possibility of mistaken identity of the assailant by the injured. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited Courts attention to the statement of PW-2 Ratan Lal injured that one Murari had intervened. It has been urged that Murari has not been examined in this case. I do not think that it makes any difference. It hardly needs to be reiterated that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. Murari might have intervened, but it was not incumbent on the prosecution to produce him as a witness who was not named in the FIR. I do not think that it makes any difference. It hardly needs to be reiterated that it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. Murari might have intervened, but it was not incumbent on the prosecution to produce him as a witness who was not named in the FIR. From the side of appellant the reliance has been placed on the observations made in the case of Thakur and others v. State, AIR 1955 Allahabad 189, that where there is evidence that a large number of independent witnesses could have deposed about the incident, their absence from the list of witnesses and the presence of only partisan witnesses creates a doubt in the prosecution case. Suffice it to say in this regard that the observation made in the setting of the facts of a particular case cannot always be transplanted on the other with different facts and circumstances. In the case at hand, Murari was not cited as witness in the FIR and the prosecution cannot be blamed if he was not examined at the trial. Moreover, as observed earlier, the testimony of injured Ratan Lal alone is sufficient in the present case to prove the guilt of the accused. 12. A few words have to be stated to deal with DW 1 Ram Prasad upon whose statement the learned Counsel for the appellant has heavily relied in support of the appeal. True, it was he who had admitted the injured in the hospital and as such his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. He stated that when he reached the spot, he saw Ratan Lal lying injured on the ground. It is also in his statement that he had enquired from him as to who had attacked him but he told him that because of darkness he could not know as to who was the assailant. On examining his entire statement, I endorse the view taken by the trial Judge that he crossed over to the side of the accused and made this statement at his behest to help him to come out of the difficult situation in which he placed himself by dangerously injuring Ratan Lal. It came to be admitted by him that he had come to depose at the instance of the father of the accused who had brought him to the Court. It came to be admitted by him that he had come to depose at the instance of the father of the accused who had brought him to the Court. So, without being summoned he chose to be a defence witness on the request of the father of the accused. He knew the accused from the childhood. For the first time, he deposed in the Court that the accused had been falsely implicated. Despite knowing it fully that he had been falsely implicated, he never moved to any authority in this behalf. He also never approached the Investigating Officer to record his statement. He has rightly been disbelieved that the injured had told him that he could not see his assailant because of darkness. 13. On thoroughly considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant in the light of evidence on record and the related circumstances, I do not locate any merit in this appeal. The accused assaulted the victim on the given date, time and place and the injuries caused to him were dangerously grave, short of death. There is clear statement of PW-5 Dr. R. K. Gupta that the injuries in question were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is very clear form the location and nature of the injuries. Even the omentum and intestines were coming out. The accused shall be imputed to have intended to cause death of the victim by causing such injuries. He has rightly been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment against him is also justified, calling for no interference. 14. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellant Vinod Kumar is on bail. He shall be arrested and lodged in Jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad shall report compliance of this order within two months. The record of the lower Court be returned to the Court below forthwith. Appeal dismissed. .