JUDGMENT This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.05.1988 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1987, whereby the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 328 of Indian Penal /Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.), and sentenced him for three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. It was also directed that out of the fine, if realized from the appellant/accused, a sum of Rs. 500/- would be paid to the victim Aftab Alam as compensation. By the same judgment and order, the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Sama Begum. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that P.W. 2 Mehboob Alam lodged a report stating therein that his son P.W. 3 Aftab Alam had illicit relations with Mumtaz daughter of appellant Akil Ahmad. Once they both were seen together by appellant Akil Ahmad and Smt. Shabri Begum, they threatened Aftab Alam to kill him. On 18.11.1985 at about 5:00 P.M., on railway line near the Ziyarat, the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum (who were acquitted by the trial court) met victim Aftab Alam and they made him to sit near the Ziyarat. They enquired from Aftab Alam as to why he used to have talks with his daughter. When Aftab Alam denied the same, then all the three i.e. appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum forcibly administered some poisonous substance to him due to which Aftab Alam become unconscious. This incident was witnessed by Munna and Amir Hussain (P.W.4) and they came to the complainant and informed him. The complainant and his son Rais Alam went there and they took victim Aftab Alam to Government Hospital Haldwani and he was admitted there. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 18.11.1985 at 9:30 P.M. at P.S. Haldwani, Distt. Nainital by Mehboob Alam, that FIR is Ex. Ka. 3. On the basis of this report, a Chik FIR was prepared by Constable Clerk Prakash Chandra, i.e. Ex. Ka.1. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 18.11.1985 at 9:30 P.M. at P.S. Haldwani, Distt. Nainital by Mehboob Alam, that FIR is Ex. Ka. 3. On the basis of this report, a Chik FIR was prepared by Constable Clerk Prakash Chandra, i.e. Ex. Ka.1. The entry was also made in the G.D., the carbon copy of G.D. is Ex. Ka.2. The investigation of this case was entrusted to S.I. R.D. Shukla. Victim Aftab Alam was medically examined by P.W. 5 Dr. N.P. Agarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Haldwani on 18.11.1985 at 5:45 P.M. and the medical report was prepared, that medical report is Ex.Ka-4. The doctor considered the history of intake of Tik 20 at about 5:15 P.M., admitted victim Aftab Alam in the hospital and the bed head ticket of victim Aftab Alam was prepared, i.e. Ex. Ka.5. During the course of the investigation, the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan i.e. Ex.Ka.6. The I.O. also recorded the statements of the witnesses during the course of investigation and after completing the investigation, then submitted the charge sheet against the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum in the court on 30.12.1985, that charge sheet is Ex. Ka.7. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Distt. Nainital committed the case to the court of Sessions on 22.3.1987 under section 209 Cr.P.C. after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. 4. On 13.07.1987, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital framed the charge against the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum u/s 328 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to them who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Constable P.C. Punetha, P.W. 2 Mehboob Alam, who is the complainant and father of victim, P.W.3 Aftab Alam, who is the victim, P.W. 4 Amir Hussain, eyewitness, P.W.5 Dr. N.P. Agarwal, who has medically examined the victim and P.W.6 S.I. R.D. Shukla, I.O. of the case. 6. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the oral and documentary evidence were put to them. N.P. Agarwal, who has medically examined the victim and P.W.6 S.I. R.D. Shukla, I.O. of the case. 6. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the oral and documentary evidence were put to them. However, they denied the allegations made against them and in defence they had not produced any oral evidence but in documentary evidence, they filed the carbon copy of the FIR which was lodged by the appellant-Akil Ahmad against the Victim Aftab Alam u/s 307 IPC on 3.4.1987, i.e. Ex.Kha-1. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated 12.05.1988 convicted the appellant-Akil Ahmad under Section 328 of IPC and sentenced him for three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months further rigorous imprisonment was awarded. It was also directed that out of the fine, if realized from the appellant/accused, a sum of Rs. 500/- would be paid to the victim Aftab Alam as compensation. However, by the same judgment and order, the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum. Against the said judgment and order dated 12.5.1988, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Sri K.S. Mehra, Learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Constable P.C. Punetha, who has stated that on 18.11.1985, he was posted as Constable Clerk in P.S. Haldwani. On that day at 9:30 P.M., Mehboob Alam lodged a report in the police station on the basis of which he prepared the chik FIR, i.e. Ex.Ka-1. The entry was also made in the G.D., the carbon copy of G.D. is Ex.Ka-2. 10. P.W. 2 is Mehboob Alam, who is the complainant of the case, has stated that Aftab Alam is his son and appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum (who were acquitted by the trial court) were known to him. The incident took place on 18.11.1985. At that time, he was in his shop along with his another son Rais Alam. Shama Begum (who were acquitted by the trial court) were known to him. The incident took place on 18.11.1985. At that time, he was in his shop along with his another son Rais Alam. The witnesses Amir Hussain and Munna came to his shop and they informed him that his son Aftab Alam was lying outside the boundary of the Mazar of Baba Jalal Shah and he was unconscious. They further informed him that they had seen the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum there. They further informed him that both the ladies i.e. Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum had pressed both the shoulders of Aftab Alam and present appellant Akil Ahmad had administered some substance in his mouth. On seeing the witnesses Munna and Amir Hussain, all the three i.e. appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum ran away from the spot and Aftab Alam got unconscious on the spot. He has also stated that after that, he and his son Rais Alam and the witnesses Amir Hussain and Munna took Aftab to the hospital and Aftab was admitted in the hospital. The report of this incident was dictated by him to his son Rais Alam and whatever he had stated, Rais Alam had written and he has signed on that report and he also proved that report, i.e. Ex. Ka-3. He has further stated that since he was busy in the treatment of his son and that is why the delay was caused in lodging the report. He has further stated that he has lodged the report when his son came into senses. He further stated that his son Aftab has a shop of ladies items where the ladies and other customers used to come to purchase the items and Mumtaz, the daughter of appellant Akil Ahmad also used to come in the shop of Aftab. He further stated that before 3-4 days of the said incident, appellant Akil Ahmad came to him and told him for the solemnization of the marriage of Mumtaz along with his son Aftab Alam but he has refused for the same. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is reliable and natural. 11. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is reliable and natural. 11. P.W.3 is Aftab Alam who has stated that appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum (who were acquitted by the trial court) were known to him. Km. Mumtaz was also known to him who is the daughter of appellant Akil. Mumtaz used to stay with Shabri Begum and Shabri Begum was living in front of his house. His shop is in Line No. 12 Vanbhulpura, Haldwani which is in his house and in that shop, ladies items used to be sold. The ladies and girls used to come in his shop for purchasing of articles and Mumtaz also used to come for purchase of articles. Mumtaz used to tell him for her marriage along with him but he had refused for it. Appellant-Akil had seen once while talking him with Mumtaz, then appellant had threatened him that he should marry with Mumtaz otherwise he would be killed, however, he refused for the marriage. The said incident took place about two years back. He had gone to the Mazar for Fatiya, meanwhile appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum reached on the place of occurrence and they called him near the railway line. Then he had gone near the railway line and sat on the grass. The appellant asked him to marry with Mumtaz but he refused for the same, on which the appellant threatened him to his life. Then accused Shabri Begum and Shama caught him and appellant administered some substance in his mouth. On seeing Munna and Amir Hussain, the appellant along with accused persons ran away from there. The incident took place at about 5:00 P.M. and he came into senses at about 9:00 P.M. in the hospital. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is also reliable and natural. 12. P.W. 4 is Amir Hussain who has stated that the incident took place two years back, the time was about 5:00 P.M. He was coming along with Munna from the side of Gola. The evidence of this witness is also reliable and natural. 12. P.W. 4 is Amir Hussain who has stated that the incident took place two years back, the time was about 5:00 P.M. He was coming along with Munna from the side of Gola. Near the Ziyarat, he saw that three accused persons including the appellant were sitting near Aftab Alam. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum had caught hold Aftab Alam and appellant had administered some substance in his mouth. When he reached 6-7 paces away from them, then the appellant along with accused persons ran away and Aftab had become unconscious. After that they came in the house of Aftab and informed about the incident to Mehboob and Rais Alam. After that they along with Mehboob and Rais went near the Ziyarat. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has come out from his evidence which may create any doubt in his evidence. The evidence of this witness is also reliable and natural. 13. P.W. 5 is Dr. N.P. Aggarwal who has stated that on 18.12.1985, he was posted in Civil Hospital. Haldwani as Medical Officer. On that day at 5:45 P.M., Aftab Alam was taken to the hospital by Rais Alam and he was medically examined by him and he found the following facts on his body :- "He was told that somebody had administered Tik-20 to Aftab Alam and he also vomited in the house before half an hour. The general condition of the patient was low. Pulse Rate was 90 per minute and respiration rate was 20 per minute and temperature was 99.6° Fahrenheit. Dehydration was also present and the patient was semi-conscious and responding only to painful stimulate. In both the lungs, crypts were there and there was a doubt of administering Tik-20 to the patient." He has further stated that the stomach of the patient was washed and sample was preserved. The police was informed about the incident and the patient was admitted to the hospital. After seeing the condition of the patient, he opined that he has a doubt that Tik-20 poison was administered to him. He has taken the original accidental register with him and the copy of the same is Ex.Ka-4. He also took the bed head ticket with him. After seeing the condition of the patient, he opined that he has a doubt that Tik-20 poison was administered to him. He has taken the original accidental register with him and the copy of the same is Ex.Ka-4. He also took the bed head ticket with him. The patient was admitted to the hospital and the bed head ticket was prepared, i.e. Ex.Ka.5. In cross-examination, he has stated that the symptoms which he wrote in Ex.Ka-4 were not the symptoms of food poisoning. He further stated that he has a definite opinion that some poisonous substance was administered to the patient. 14. P.W.6 is S.I. R.D. Shukla, I.O. of the case, who has stated that from 20.11.1985 to 30.12.1985, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in P.S. Haldwani. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and site plan was also prepared by him, i.e. Ex.Ka.6. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet on 30.12.1985, i.e. Ex.Ka.7. 15. Thereafter, the statements of the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and the oral and documentary evidence were put to them. However, they denied the allegations made against them and in defence they had not produced any oral evidence but in documentary, they filed the carbon copy of the FIR which was lodged by the appellant-Akil Ahmad against the victim Aftab Alam u/s 307 IPC on 3.4.1987, i.e. Ex. Kha-1. 16. Sri I.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the basis of the evidence discussed above, the case against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. From the evidence discussed above, it is proved that on 18.11.1985 at 5:00 P.M. near railway line outside the boundary of Ziyarat, the appellant administered some poisonous substance in the mouth of victim Aftab Alam, which is also proved from the statement of P.W.2 Mehboob Alam. P.W.2 Mehboob Alam has stated in his evidence that P.W.4 Amir Hussain and Munna informed him that his son Aftab Alam was lying outside the boundary of the Mazar of Baba Jala Shah and he was unconscious. P.W.2 Mehboob Alam has stated in his evidence that P.W.4 Amir Hussain and Munna informed him that his son Aftab Alam was lying outside the boundary of the Mazar of Baba Jala Shah and he was unconscious. They further informed him that they had seen the appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum there. They further informed him that both the ladies i.e. Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum had pressed both the shoulders of Aftab Alam and present appellant Akil Ahmad had administered some substance in his mouth. After seeing the witnesses Munna and Amir Hussain, all the three i.e. appellant Akil Ahmad and accused Smt. Shabri Begum and Km. Shama Begum ran away from the spot and Aftab Alam got unconscious on the spot. This fact is also supported from the evidence of P.W.4 Amir Hussain who has stated that the incident took place two years back, the time was about 5:00 P.M. He was coming along with Munna from the side of Gola. Near the Ziyarat, he saw that three accused persons including the appellant were sitting near Aftab Alam. Shabri Begum and Shama Begum had caught hold Aftab Alam and appellant had administered some poisonous substance in his mouth. When they reached 6-7 paces away from them, then the appellant along with accused persons ran away and Aftab Alam had become unconscious. After that they came in the house of Aftab and informed about the incident to Mehboob and Rais Alam, who is the victim, has also stated that some substance was administered to him by the appellant due to the reason that he refused to marry with Mumtaz, daughter of the present appellant. P.W.5 Dr. N.P. Aggarwal has also stated that in his opinion, some poisonous substance was given to Aftab Alam and he treated the patient presuming that some poisonous substance like Tik-20 was given to him. The said incident took place on 18.11.1985 at about 5:00 P.M. and the appellant was admitted to the hospital at 5:45 P.M. and the FIR was lodged at 9:30 P.M. on the same day. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 1 Km. The said incident took place on 18.11.1985 at about 5:00 P.M. and the appellant was admitted to the hospital at 5:45 P.M. and the FIR was lodged at 9:30 P.M. on the same day. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 1 Km. Thus, from the evidence discussed above, it is proved that on 18.11.1985 at about 5:00 P.M., the present appellant administered some poisonous substance to Aftab Alam due to the reason that he refused to marry with the daughter of appellant namely Mumtaz and this fact is also supported from the statement of P.W.2 Mehboob Alam, P.W.3 Aftab Alam and P.W.4 Amir Hussain (eyewitness of the incident) and is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. N.P. Agarwal as well as from the medical report i.e. Ex.Ka.4 and bed head ticket Ex.Ka.5. As such, from the evidence discussed above, it is well proved that the appellant has committed an offence punishable u/s 328 IPC. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the sample taken by the doctor was not examined in any laboratory and nor any chemical examination was conducted, hence it cannot definitely be said that some poisonous substance like Tik-20 was administered to the appellant. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not as per the evidence available on record. From the evidence discussed above, it is proved that the poisonous substance was given to the victim Aftab Alam and Dr. N.P. Aggarwal P.W.5 has also stated that in his opinion that poisonous substance was given to him and he has treated the patient presuming that the said poison was Tik-20 poison. From the evidence discussed above and also from the statement of P.W.5 Dr. N.P. Aggarwal, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has administered poisonous substance i.e. Tik-20 poison to the victim P.W.3 Aftab Alam. Section 328 of the IPC is also relevant to mention here which reads as under :- 328. Causing hurt by means of poison etc. N.P. Aggarwal, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has administered poisonous substance i.e. Tik-20 poison to the victim P.W.3 Aftab Alam. Section 328 of the IPC is also relevant to mention here which reads as under :- 328. Causing hurt by means of poison etc. with intent to commit an offence - Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 18. Thus, as per the evidence discussed above, it is ample clear that the appellant has administered some poisonous substance to the victim Aftab Alam with the intention to cause hurt to victim P.W.3 Aftab Alam knowingly that he will thereby cause hurt to the victim and in this way, he has committed an offence punishable u/s 328 IPC. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the present case, the appellant-Akil Ahmad also lodged a FIR against the victim Aftab Alam on 3.4.1987 u/s 307 IPC and due to the enmity, the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not as per law. The said FIR was lodged on 3.4.1987 and the present incident had occurred on 18.11.1985, in this way, the FIR lodged by the appellant is not at all helpful to him. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the prosecution has only examined Amir Hussain as P.W.4, however, on the place of occurrence, witness Munna was also there, however, he was not examined by the prosecution and thus the prosecution story seems to be doubtful. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable in the eye of law. As per the evidence discussed above, P.W.4 Amir Hussain and Munna both had seen the incident but Amir Hussain was examined as P.W.4 and he has supported the prosecution case. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable in the eye of law. As per the evidence discussed above, P.W.4 Amir Hussain and Munna both had seen the incident but Amir Hussain was examined as P.W.4 and he has supported the prosecution case. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State also refuted the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and he cited a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittar lal V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2003) 6 SCC 397 in which it has been held that conviction can be based on sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence. Para 7 of the judgment is quoted below :- "Evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses, more particularly, eyewitnesses should be indicated in the FIR. As was observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan V. State of Rajasthan mere non-mention of the name of an eyewitness does not render the prosecution version fragile. The information was not lodged by an eyewitness. Mental condition of a person whose father has lost his life inevitable gets disturbed. Explanation offered by witnesses for non-mention if PW 3's name is plausible. Additionally, it is to be noted that in the present case the statement of PW3 was recorded on the same day of incident, immediately after the investigation process was set into motion. Therefore, the plea that PW 3's testimony is doubtful lacks substance. The other plea was that conviction should not have been made on the basis of a single witness, PW 3's testimony. This plea is equally without essence. The legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "The Evidence Act"). Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes the offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. This position has been settled by a series of decisions. The first decision which has become locus classicus is Mohd. Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah. R. The Privy Council focused on the difference between English law where a number of statutes make conviction impermissible for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness and Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The view has been echoed in Vadivelu Thevar V. State of Madras, Guli Chand V. State of Rajasthan, Vahula Bhushan V. State of T.N., Jagdish Pradesh V. State of M.P. and Kartik Malhar V. State of Bihar." 21. Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State further cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh V. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 583. He relied on para 11 which reads as under :- "11. It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the basis of the testimony of a sole eyewitness." 22. After considering the aforesaid judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the evidence discussed above, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. 23. Thus, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-appellant under Sections 328 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. 24. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the judgment and order dated 12.05.1988 passed by I Addl. 23. Thus, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-appellant under Sections 328 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. 24. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the judgment and order dated 12.05.1988 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital is correct and justified, as per the law and also as per the evidence discussed above. I am in full agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 25. In view of the above said discussions, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The conviction as well as sentence awarded by the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital to the appellant in S.T. No. 79 of 1987 is hereby confirmed. 26. Let the record of the case be sent back to the trial court concerned for compliance of the order.