JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The challenge in this appeal preferred by appellant-convict Suraj Bhan son of Bagrawat (for brevity “the appellant”), is to the impugned judgment of conviction dated 3.8.2002 and order of sentence dated 5.8.2002, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (for short “RI”) for a period of seven years & one month, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one month for the commission of an offence punishable under section 307 IPC by the trial Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. 2. The compendium of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that complainant Madan Gopal son of Rameshwar Dass (PW5) (for brevity “the complainant”) was a retired teacher. He was residing with his son Balraj Singh. His another son Raj Kumar (PW6) was separately residing in the outer plot. Raj Kumar had given four rooms of his house on rent of Rs.300/- per month each. The appellant was residing in one room as a tenant. Since his (Raj Kumar) wife was away to her parental house, so, the complainant had gone to his house on that day. On the night of 19.8.2001, the appellant abused Raj Kumar under the influence of liquor. The complainant was sleeping in the room, whereas Raj Kumar was sleeping on a cot in the court yard of his house. The main gate of the house was locked from inside. On 20.8.2001 at about 4 A.M., the complainant heard the noise and came out of the house. He noticed that the appellant was inflicting injuries on the head of Raj Kumar with brick. He raised noise and tried to save his son from his clutches. It was claimed that appellant has tried to give beatings to the complainant as well. Thereafter, he threw the brick, went up the stairs of the house, jumped in the street and decamped from the place of occurrence. 3. Narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that on 20.8.2001, the appellant has repeatedly caused multiple grievous injuries on the head of Raj Kumar with the brick and attempted to murder him. Thereafter, he threw the brick, went up the stairs of the house, jumped in the street and decamped from the place of occurrence. 3. Narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant that on 20.8.2001, the appellant has repeatedly caused multiple grievous injuries on the head of Raj Kumar with the brick and attempted to murder him. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.P2) of the complainant, the present case was registered against the appellant, by way of FIR No.675 dated 20.8.2001 (Ex.P4), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 308 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Hisar in the manner depicted here-in-above. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant to face the trial for the indicated offence. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. As he did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Judge. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant, examined PW1 Raju, Draftsman, who has prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.P1) of the spot on 13.10.2001 with its correct marginal notes at the instance of the complainant. PW8 Satpal Photographer had snapped the photograph (Ex.P10) of blood stained pillow cover (Ex.P8), vide negative (Ex.P11). 7. Sequelly, PW2 ASI Kewal Singh has recorded the formal FIR (Ex.P4) on 20.8.2001, on receipt of ruqqa (Ex.P2) from SI Ishwar Singh. PW3 C.Bhawar Singh and PW4 C.Sanjiv Kumar are the formal witnesses, who have only tendered their respective affidavits (Ex.P5 & Ex.P6) in order to complete the chain of link evidence. 8. Likewise, PW6 Raj Kumar son of Madan Gopal is material/ injured witness, who has deposed in the following terms:- “I have constructed the house in the plots outside the abadi of village. In the month of August 2001 I had rented out four rooms of my house. Out of that one room was rented out to accused Suraj Bhan present in the court. On 19.8.2001 my wife had gone to her parental house. My father on that day had come to my house in the night to sleep over there in order to look after the house. Out of that one room was rented out to accused Suraj Bhan present in the court. On 19.8.2001 my wife had gone to her parental house. My father on that day had come to my house in the night to sleep over there in order to look after the house. He went to sleep in a room. I was sleeping in the courtyard of this house. Accused present in the court came there in a drunkard condition. He tried to open the door after breaking the door of his room to which I lodged protest whereupon he started giving filthy abuses to me. I asked him to vacate the rented house. I also asked him to pay arrears of two month rent. My father came there and he made him to sleep in his rented room. Thereafter my father slept in his house and I also slept in the courtyard of my house. At about 4.00 a.m. on 20.8.2001 accused present in the court caused injuries on my head. Thereafter, after receipt of injuries I became unconscious. I remained admitted in the hospital for about 25/26 days. Thereafter I did not regain my consciousness properly. Till now I am not properly conscious. I have lost eye sight of right eye due to abovesaid injury on my head. Police recorded my statement in this connection.” 9. Similarly, PW5 complainant Madan Gopal has supported the prosecution story. Instead of reproducing his entire statement and in order to avoid the repetition suffice it to say that he has duly corroborated the statement of PW6 and his version contained in the initial statement (Ex.P2), which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.P4) on all vital aspects of the matter. The statement of PW7 Dharam Chand is to the effect that on the fateful day, he was searching his buffalo in the night. When he reached near the house of Raj Kumar, he heard the noise ‘Mar Diya Mar Diya”. There was a light of electric bulb in the street. The appellant (present in the Court) was seen jumping from the roof of the house of Raj Kumar. PW Subhash was also present there. They caught hold of him, but subsequently, he managed to escape from their grip. They entered in the house of Raj Kumar, where the complainant was present and Raj Kumar was lying unconscious on the cot. The appellant (present in the Court) was seen jumping from the roof of the house of Raj Kumar. PW Subhash was also present there. They caught hold of him, but subsequently, he managed to escape from their grip. They entered in the house of Raj Kumar, where the complainant was present and Raj Kumar was lying unconscious on the cot. He has further maintained that police has taken into possession the blood stained brick and cover of pillow in their presence, vide recovery memo (Ex.P7), which was attested by them. 10. The next to note is the testimony of PW10 Dr.Vijay Kumar, Neuro Surgeon, who has medico legally examined and operated Raj Kumar injured on 20.8.2001, vide MLR (Ex.D1) and found the following injuries on his person:- 1. Patient was in coma. 2. There was 5 x 5 cmt. bogginess on right frontal region. 3. Right temporal bogginess 8 x 8 cmt. 4. There was left frontal intracranial haematoma EDH. 5. There was right temporal parietal depressed fracture. 6. There was diffuse cerebral edema. 7. Bilateral black eye, optic nerve injury. 8. Nasal bleed. 9. There was 4 cmt. ear laceration. 11. He (PW10) has specifically maintained that on 20.8.2001, he had operated the head of injured and taken out three centimeter thick blood clot from the intracranial. It is so indicated in operation note (Ex.P22). He opined that injury No.3 on his person was dangerous to life, whereas injuries No.4 to 6 were grievous, and injuries No.1, 2, 7 and 8 were simple, in nature. He has categorically stated that if the medical aid was not provided and the operation of brain was not timely performed, the patient could have died. The kind of weapon used was blunt. He testified that the injuries on the person of injured can very well be possible with the brick (Ex.P9). He has also proved the MLR (Ex.D1), diagram showing the seat of injuries (Ex.P16) and medical ruqqa (Ex.P14) sent by him to In charge, Police Post Model Town, Hisar for information and necessary action. On police requests (Ex.P13, Ex.P17 & Ex.P19), he gave his opinions of respective dates (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/C, Ex.P18 and Ex.P20) that injured Raj Kumar was not fit to make statement. He has also produced the copy of original bed head ticket (Ex.P21) of the injured and operation note (Ex.P22). 12. On police requests (Ex.P13, Ex.P17 & Ex.P19), he gave his opinions of respective dates (Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/C, Ex.P18 and Ex.P20) that injured Raj Kumar was not fit to make statement. He has also produced the copy of original bed head ticket (Ex.P21) of the injured and operation note (Ex.P22). 12. Now adverting to the testimony of PW9 SI Ishwar Singh, he has testified his investigation and maintained that on receipt of a VT message (Ex.P12) regarding admission of Raj Kumar injured, he went to the Police Post Model Town, Hisar and collected the ruqqa (Ex.P14). Thereafter, he went to Jindal Hospital and moved an application (Ex.P13) to the doctor for obtaining his opinion. The doctor gave his opinion (Ex.PW13/A). The statement (Ex.P2) of father of Raj Kumar was recorded by him. He put his signatures after admitting its contents as correct. He made his endorsement (Ex.P3) and sent it to the police station through UGC Hawa Singh for registration of a case. He along with the complainant went to the spot. The photographer had snapped photograph (Ex.P10) of blood stained pillow cover (Ex.P8). He has inspected and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.P15) of the spot with its correct marginal notes. One blood stained brick was lying along with the cot. He has taken into possession the brick (Ex.P9), pillow cover and cot (Ex.P8), vide recovery memo (Ex.P7) attested by Subhash and Dharam Chand PWs. He has recorded the statements of witnesses. On return to police station, he deposited the parcel with MHC with seal intact. On 21.8.2001, he again visited the Jindal Hospital, where Dr.Vijay Kumar handed over him copy of MLR. He has duly testified his entire investigation. This is the total oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 13. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him therein, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, he has denied the prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication in the following manner:- “I was tenant in the house of injured but had left his house a month prior to the alleged occurrence. I have been falsely implicated because at the time I left the room of the injured I had some oral conflict regarding the payments of some enhanced rent. I have been falsely implicated because at the time I left the room of the injured I had some oral conflict regarding the payments of some enhanced rent. I am innocent.” 14. However, he (appellant) did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence despite proper opportunities. 15. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the manner described here-in-above. 16. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the evidence on record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal as regards the conviction of the appellant is concerned. 18. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not reliable and is contradictory, so, the appellant is liable to be acquitted, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 19. As is evident from the record that the prosecution claimed that on 20.8.2001, the appellant had repeatedly caused the grievous injuries on the head of Raj Kumar injured with the brick in order to kill him. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant Suraj Bhan (PW5). PW6 Raj Kumar is an injured witness, who has inter-alia categorically stated that on the fateful day, his wife had gone to her parental house and his father came to sleep at night and to look after the house. He went to sleep in the room, while he (Raj Kumar) was sleeping in the courtyard of his house. The appellant came there in a drunken condition and tried to break open the door of his room, to which, he lodged a protest, whereupon, he started giving filthy abuses to him. The appellant was residing as a tenant in one room of his house. He asked him to vacate the rented premises and demanded the arrears of rent. PW5 and PW6 have maintained that on 20.8.2001 at about 4 A.M., the appellant repeatedly caused the grievous injuries with brick on the head of Raj Kumar. After receipt of the injuries, he became unconscious and ultimately was removed to the hospital. He asked him to vacate the rented premises and demanded the arrears of rent. PW5 and PW6 have maintained that on 20.8.2001 at about 4 A.M., the appellant repeatedly caused the grievous injuries with brick on the head of Raj Kumar. After receipt of the injuries, he became unconscious and ultimately was removed to the hospital. Not only that, their statements further find corroboration from the statement of PW7 Dharam Chand, where he has, inter-alia, deposed that he and one Subhash PW were also present there. They caught hold of the appellant but he slipped away from their grip. 20. The celebrated contention of learned counsel for the appellant that non-examination of Subhash PW is fatal to the prosecution case, lacks merit as well. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 postulates that “No particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact. It is well known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that said statement is true and convincing. It is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence, which is required to prove the case of prosecution. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of fact in issue. As in the instant case, the prosecution has examined the complainant (PW5), injured eye witness (Ex.PW6) and another eye witness (PW7), therefore, the prosecution was not legally required to examine PW Subhash as it has already led sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. Hence, the contrary submissions of his counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 21. Now adverting to the next contention of learned counsel that no offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is made out against the appellant, this submission also sans merit. It has come in evidence that the appellant has repeatedly caused multiple grievous and dangerous to life injuries on the head (vital part) of Raj Kumar injured with the brick. The repeatedly causing eight injuries on his person is indicative of the fact that the appellant had the requisite intention and knowledge that he was causing injuries in order to kill him (Raj Kumar). 22. The repeatedly causing eight injuries on his person is indicative of the fact that the appellant had the requisite intention and knowledge that he was causing injuries in order to kill him (Raj Kumar). 22. Not only that, PW10 Dr.Vijay Kumar, Neuro Surgeon performed the operation and found eight injuries on the person of the injured. He has specifically opined that injury No.3 was dangerous to life and if the medical aid was not provided and the operation of the brain was not timely performed, the patient could have died. He has further opined that injuries No.4 to 6 on his person were grievous in nature. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is not made out, as contrary urged on behalf of the appellant. 23. Thus, it would be seen that the prosecution story is probable and natural. The case of prosecution is duly supported by the injured/eye witnesses in the pointed manner. The investigation was duly testified by the Investigating Officer. They have fully proved the complicity of the appellant. They were cross-examined at length, but no substantial material could be elicited in their searching cross examination to dislodge their testimony and impeach their credibility. No motive could possibly be attributed to the complainant or injured/eye witnesses as to why they would falsely implicate the appellant in this case. They gave a vivid, consistent and cogent version of the occurrence and supported the prosecution story on all vital counts. The learned counsel for appellant did not point out any other legal infirmity or major contradictions and inherent improbabilities, muchless cogent, to dislodge the prosecution version, which is otherwise duly proved by the ocular, medical and documentary evidence as described here-in-above, coupled with the acknowledgment of the appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that he was a tenant in the house of injured. He had some oral conflict with him regarding the payment of some enhanced rent. Since the appellant was a tenant and was not paying the rent, Raj Kumar injured confronted him and demanded the payment of arrears of rent, so, there was clear motive for him (appellant) to cause injuries to him. He had some oral conflict with him regarding the payment of some enhanced rent. Since the appellant was a tenant and was not paying the rent, Raj Kumar injured confronted him and demanded the payment of arrears of rent, so, there was clear motive for him (appellant) to cause injuries to him. The mere routine denial by the appellant that he was falsely implicated and some unknown person caused injuries on the person of injured, outrightly deserves to be rejected in the absence of any cogent material on record in this relevant direction. 24. Therefore, if the facts of natural & probable story of prosecution, coupled with medical and documentary evidence and totality of the indicated circumstances, oozing out of the evidence on record, as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then to me, the conclusion is inevitable that the prosecution has brought on record the sufficient, acceptable and reliable evidence to prove the charge and the trial Judge has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant u/s 307 IPC in the manner projected here-in-above. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 25. Be that as it may, however, the last submission of learned counsel that there is some scope of reduction in the matter of sentence of the appellant, has considerable force. The perusal of the record would reveal that he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of seven years for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. As per custody certificate, appellant Suraj Bhan has already undergone the considerable period of 2 years, 3 months and 20 days, out of the total sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 years and 1 month awarded by the trial Court. He has already faced the pangs and suffered the agony of protracted trial and appeal for the last more than 12 years. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. He has minor children, old parents and there is no other male member in his family to look after them. The learned State counsel has acknowledged this factual matrix. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. He has minor children, old parents and there is no other male member in his family to look after them. The learned State counsel has acknowledged this factual matrix. Thus, to my mind, it would be expedient in the interest and justice would be sub-served if the sentence of imprisonment of seven years & one month imposed on him by the trial Court is reduced to RI for a period of five years. 26. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 27. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine are hereby maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years and one month awarded to the appellant is reduced to RI for a period of five years. Therefore, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-above. At the same time, the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to secure the presence of the appellant forthwith and commit him to jail to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence (if not already undergone). --------0.B.S.0------------