JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants in the instant appeal have challenged the judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 whereby the accused appellant Jesa Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 325, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and against Section 325 IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and against Section 323/34 IPC, he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00/-; in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days. The accused appellants, Madan Lal and Smt. Singari, have been convicted for offence under Section 325/34 and 323 IPC and instead of sentencing them to undergo punishment, they have been given benefit of probation and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default, 12 days simple imprisonment. 2. The Governmental Enforcement Agency was set into motion in view of the registration of FIR No. 38/1989 at Police Station Losal at 7.00 p.m. on the basis of recorded statement of one Ganpat Ram. It was stated by Ganpat Ram that on the previous day at 9.00 p.m., he was way-laid by the appellants. The accused appellant Jesa Ram inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head and other appellants also gave 'lathi' blows on his hands and feet. Criminal case under Section 323 and 341 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, the injury on the head of Ganpat Ram (PW-4) was found to be grievous. The accused appellants were charge-sheeted for the crime including for offence one under Section 307 IPC. 3. In order to prove the case against the accused appellants, the prosecution examined Parsa Ram (PW-1), Hanumana Ram (PW-2), Dr. B.L. Jangid (PW-3), Ganpat (PW- 4), Ramlal (PW-5), Laxman (PW-6) and Jhabar Mal (PW-7). The accused appellant Jesa Ram was charged for offence under Section 307 and 323/34 IPC whereas accused appellants Madan Lal and Smt. Singari were charged under Section 307 and 323/34 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and the prosecution evidence. Three defence witnesses, namely, Madan Lal (DW-1), Bhagwana Ram (DW- 2) and Pokhar Ram (DW-3) were also examined in defence on behalf of accused appellant. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated herein above. 4. The accused appellants denied the charges and the prosecution evidence. Three defence witnesses, namely, Madan Lal (DW-1), Bhagwana Ram (DW- 2) and Pokhar Ram (DW-3) were also examined in defence on behalf of accused appellant. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated herein above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 for the same is based on conjectures and surmises in the absence of corroborative evidence to sustain the prosecution story, the conviction of the accused appellant is bad in the eye of law. Further, since the incident occurred under the cover of darkness as deposed by the injured complainant (Ganpat Ram(PW-4), therefore, identification of the assailants was not possible and the first information report was lodged after a delay of 12 hours and Ramlal (PW-5) reached the place of occurrence when the assailants were in process of making good their escape. The solitary statements of injured complainant (Ganpat Ram) examined as PW-4, have been assailed on account of material improvement over the earlier version and hence, there was no evidence worth placing reliance to sustain the conviction. The occur evidence has also been assailed on the ground of being evidence of interested witness since the witnesses were friend and relative of the injured party. 5. Moreover, since accused appellant (Jesa Ram) was not charged for offence under Section 325 IPC, the punishment for offence was bad in the eye of law. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants in the alternative submitted that the accused appellants suffered the ordeal of the trial and the proceedings in the above noted appeal since June 1989 till date for more than 23 years and further, the complainant (Ganpat Ram) and the accused persons are members of the same family closely related, so much so that the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) is the real brother and Smt. Singari is wife of Jesa Ram and thus, his sister-in-law. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the impugned judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 passed by the Trial Court and has argued that Ganpat Ram (PW-4), the injured witness and author of the FIR, has specifically attributed the injuries suffered by him, to the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) and when he fell down, he was also given 'lathi' blows by other accused appellants i.e., Smt. Singari and Madan Lal. Ramlal (PW-5), who reached the place of incident, soon thereafter found Ganpat Ram (PW-4) injured and the accused appellants made good their escape. Further, deposition of Ganpat Ram (PW-4), the injured witness and Ramlal (PW-5), finds corroboration from the medical evidence and statement deposed by Dr. B.L. Jangid (PW-3). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The complainant (Ganpat Ram) (PW-4) has specifically attributed the injuries to the accused appellant (Jesa Ram). Ramlal (PW-5), who reached at the place of incident immediately, has further corroborated the deposition of Ganpat Ram (PW-4), their statements are also corroborated by the medical evidence and the statement deposed by Dr. B.L. Jangid, who prepared the Medico Legal Report of the injured eye witness Ganpat Ram (PW-4), who suffered 4 injuries in all; out of which, 3 injuries were found to be bruises and injury No. 2, the fourth injury, was a lacerated wound measuring 3.6 cm x 0.8 cm on scalp for which X-Ray was advised and as per X-Ray Report; fracture was detected in left temporal region; in his deposition before the Trial Court stated that the injury suffered on the head by the injured Ganpat Ram (PW-4) though was sufficient to cause death but he did not find the condition of the injured serious and his general condition was normal. Neither the injured was vomiting nor he was unconscious and there was no abnormality in the pupil or cornea of the injured Ganpat Ram (PW-4) and was not subjected any operation on account of the head injury. The other three injuries suffered by injured Ganpat Ram (PW-4), were found to be simple by blunt weapon but the injury inflicted on the head by the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) was found to be grievous. 9. The other three injuries suffered by injured Ganpat Ram (PW-4), were found to be simple by blunt weapon but the injury inflicted on the head by the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) was found to be grievous. 9. The mere fact that witnesses were relative and/or friend or interested would not by itself be sufficient to discard their testimony straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court and that finds support from the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in State of Gujarat v. Naginbhai Dhulabhai Patel, (1983 Cr.L.J. 1112) and in view of what has been observed in the judgment (supra) it is well settled that the evidence of natural witnesses cannot be discarded on the sole ground of interested ness, but their evidence should be subjected to close scrutiny. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses and evidence of interested witnesses cannot be equated with that of tainted witnesses. However, there is no absolute rule that the evidence of interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration and simply because the eye witnesses happens to be the relative and friend of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded, if otherwise acceptable. 10. "Related is not equivalent to "interested". A witness can be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested and the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land had an occasion to examine that issue in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, (1981 Cr.L.J. 1012). The relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as observed by Apex Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976 Cr. Law Journal 1757). The relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit testimony of witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as observed by Apex Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976 Cr. Law Journal 1757). The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, ( AIR 2006 SC 3709 ) dealing with the issue of interested witness held as under: "The other reason assigned by the High Court in recording acquittal of the accused is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were interested witnesses being relations of deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are a harassed lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously. The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relative of the deceased." 12. In this regard Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act should also be looked into which enshrines the well recognised maxim that "evidence has to be weighed not counted". The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relative of the deceased." 12. In this regard Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act should also be looked into which enshrines the well recognised maxim that "evidence has to be weighed not counted". The matter thus depends upon circumstances of each case and the quality of evidence even of a single witness whose testimony has either to be accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even, as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case of the prosecution.13. The Apex Court of the land in State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh, ( AIR 1980 SC 184 ) observed as under:- "That law does not require a plurality of witnesses. Conviction can be passed on the testimony of a single witness, provided the evidence of the witness is trustworthy. No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact and its corroboration is required in case of doubt or suspicion. It is also true that it is not quantum of evidence but the quality and credibility of the witness that lends assurance of the Court for acceptance but testimony of witnesses must be one which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in mind of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses." 14. From the ocular evidence as well as medical evidence, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 of the Trial Court convicting the accused appellants is upheld.15. As regards the sentence, I am inclined to take a lenient view. I am informed that the dispute between the parties has already been settled as stated by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. The impugned judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 of the Trial Court convicting the accused appellants is upheld.15. As regards the sentence, I am inclined to take a lenient view. I am informed that the dispute between the parties has already been settled as stated by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. From the facts and circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence, it is evident that the accused appellants acted in the heat of moment on account of the dispute between them with reference to right of way, which was blocked by the accused appellant (Jesa Ram).Taking into consideration the fact that the incident occurred on 11th of June, 1989 i.e. some 23 years ago, in my opinion, it will not be desirable to send the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) to jail. I, accordingly, reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 days awarded by the Trial Court to imprisonment of seven days already undergone by the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees : Ten Thousands Only) and in default thereof, to undergo the rigorous imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. The amount of fine shall be deposited before the Trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be paid to the complainant Ganpat Ram (PW-4), failing him to his surviving legal heirs, by way of compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the sentence as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******