JUDGMENT 1. - Under challenge in the instant criminal appeal is judgment and order dated 20th January, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, in Sessions Case No. 90/1986, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The Governmental Enforcement Agency was set into motion in view of the first information report dated 26th of June, 1985 at 2.30 a.m. (Ex.P-2) registered on the basis of a written report (Ex.P-1) by one Maharaj Singh (PW-1) wherein he stated that the accused appellants along with other coaccused persons came to their house and caused injuries by gunshots, which resulted into injuries (Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-8)on the person of Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3). 3. After conclusion of the investigation, the Governmental Enforcement Agency charge-sheeted the accused persons, namely, Ramesh Chand son of Shri Pyare Lal; Shivdutt son of Shri Raghuveer Singh; Amiri son of Shri Gajadhar; Raghuveer son of Shri Kunwarpal, Rambabu son of Shri Hemraj and Jagdish son of Shri Rewati. The accused appellants and other co-accused persons denied the charges and therefore, were put to trial. In order to prove the case against the accused appellants and other co-accused persons, the prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses PW-1 to PW-10 and brought on record Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23 along with guns recovered from the accused persons being Article 1 and Article 2. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, who denied the prosecution case and the evidence to be false and the case was foisted on account of enmity, but did not produce any evidence in defence. 4. The learned Trial Court in view of the statements deposed by the prosecution witnesses and taking into consideration the material available on record collected during the course of investigation, found the accused appellants (Ramesh son of Shri Pyare Lal and Shivdutt son of Shri Raghuveer Singh), guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced as indicated above by impugned judgment and order dated 20th of January, 1989. The co-accused persons, namely, Amiri son of Shri Gajadhar and Rambabu son of Shri Hemraj, have been acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 148 & 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The co-accused person Rambabu and Jagdish has also been acquitted of the charges and offence under Section 307 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 20th of January, 1989 on the ground that out of 10 prosecution witnesses, Fateh Singh (PW-3); Natthi Lal (PW-6) and Chandran Singh (PW-7), who are the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and have been declared hostile. It is further the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Maharaj Singh (PW-1), author of the FIR; Suresh Chand (PW- 2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3), are brothers and therefore, are interested witnesses and hence, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Moreover, on the same set of evidence, coaccused persons, Amiri son of Shri Gajadhar; Raghuveer son of Shri Kunwarpal, Rambabu son of Shri Hemraj and Jagdish son of Shri Rewati, have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 20th of January, 1989 is bad in the eye of law. Referring to the statement of Suresh Chand (PW-2), it has been pointed out that Rambabu made a second gunfire, which resulted into injury on his chin and left arm and the gunfire made by Shivdutt hit the wall whereas gunfire made by Ramesh (accused appellant), caused injuries to Fateh Singh (PW-3). The learned counsel for the appellants much stressed on the point that no gun was recovered from Shivdutt whereas recovery of gun was effected from Rambabu, who has been acquitted and therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court was perverse and without any evidence. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that accused appellant (Ramesh) was aged about 30 years at the time of incident and accused appellant (Shivdutt) was aged about 26 years and they have faced the trial and the litigation for almost 27 years and placing reliance on the case of Kamal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 799) and Ram Dayal v. State of Rajasthan ( 2008 (6) WLC 324 ) submitted that a lenient view deserves to be adopted in the case. 6. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order dated 20th of January, 1989. Referring to the statement of Maharaj Singh (PW-1), it was pointed out that there was a specific act attributed to the accused appellants and they used guns in the incident thereby causing gunshot injuries to the complainant party and there is corroboration of the ocular evidence with the medical evidence. Dr. Radheshyam Sharma (PW-4) in his deposition before the learned Trial Court stated that injuries suffered by the injured persons namely, Suresh Chand and Fateh Singh, could be caused by firearm. The injury suffered by Suresh Chand (PW-2) as is evident from the Medico Legal Report (Ex.P-4) on X-Ray disclosed one radio opaque shadow (Ex.P- 8). So also the Medico Legal Report (Ex. P-9) of Fateh Singh (PW-3); and X-Ray report (Ex.P12), also shows one radio opaque shadow and therefore, there was complete corroboration of the ocular evidence with the medical evidence and hence, the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court could not be faulted and therefore, the appeal was without any substance. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The prosecution case as surfaced from the evidence and material available on record is that Maharaj Singh (PW-1) lodged the written report (Ex.P-1) on the basis of which FIR No. 118/1985 was registered at Police Station - Saipau, District Dholpur, for offence under Section 307, 147 and 149 IPC and the accused appellants along with other co-accused persons were charge-sheeted. Maharaj Singh (PW-1) deposed to the effect that Fateh Singh (PW-3), Preetam Singh, Suresh and Natthi Lal were sitting in the front of his house along with him while they were attacked by the accused appellants. Ramesh made gunfire causing injury to Fateh Singh (PW-3), though Maharaj Singh (PW-1) has also stated that he did not see the co-accused Rambabu making any gunfire. 9. Suresh Chand (PW-2), who is an injured eye witness, in his deposition stated that the accused appellants along with others came to the place of incident. Shivdutt, Ramesh and Rambabu were armed with guns with 'lathis'. Ramesh opened the fire which caused injury to Fateh Singh (PW-3) and Rambabu fired on him, which caused injury on his chin, whereas fire made by Shivdutt hit the wall and thereafter, he become unconscious. 10. Shivdutt, Ramesh and Rambabu were armed with guns with 'lathis'. Ramesh opened the fire which caused injury to Fateh Singh (PW-3) and Rambabu fired on him, which caused injury on his chin, whereas fire made by Shivdutt hit the wall and thereafter, he become unconscious. 10. Fateh Singh (PW-3) is another injured eye witness, who has stated to the effect that Shivdutt and Ramesh were armed with guns and opened fire. The gunfire made by Ramesh caused injury on his person and that of Shivdutt caused injury to Ramesh Chand (PW-2). Preetam Singh (PW- 9) has deposed to the effect that gunfire made by Ramesh caused injury on the person of Fateh Singh (PW-3). It has further been deposed by Preetam Singh (PW-9) that Suresh Chand (PW-2) also suffered gunshot injury but he could not make a statement as to at whose hands. 11. If the statements of injured witnesses i.e., Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3) are examined in the light of the statements deposed by Maharaj Singh (PW-1) and Preetam Singh (PW-9), there is consistency on the material particulars of the prosecution case substantiating the fact that the accused appellants caused injuries by gunfire and the statements of the injured eye witnesses on material aspects were also corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the statement deposed by Dr. Radheyshyam Sharma (PW-4). 12. 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 with serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of the court and that view 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 & evidence of interested witnesses cannot be equated with that of tainted witnesses. Interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses & 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/or friend of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded, if otherwise acceptable. 13. "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 the witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true, as observed by Apex Court of the land in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976 Cr. Law Journal 1757). 14. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, ( AIR 2006 SC 3709 ) : "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. 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." 15. 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. 16. 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. 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." 17. There is overwhelming evidence on record, which conclusively proves that the incident took place in the village as narrated by the author of the FIR, Maharaj Singh (PW-1). Once, the genesis of the occurrence is proved, it is now well settled that contradictions, which are minor in nature, would not be sufficient to dispel the entire prosecution case. It is true that the injured eye witnesses, who have been relied upon by the Trial Court, are interested witnesses, but it must be born in mind that despite existence of enmity, it is unlikely that they would falsely implicate the accused appellants. I have noticed hereinabove the manner in which the entire incident occurred. It is evident from the deposition of the injured eye witnesses that they were intending to settle the dispute through mediation and it is with that intent, they approached the village elders, who may intervene in the matter so as to end the dispute between the parties. 18. All the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and the essential ingredients to prove the crime against the accused, have been categorically stated by them. The Trial Court placed implicit reliance on their testimony and the learned counsel for the appellants could not invite my attention to any major contradiction in the deposition of the injured eye witnesses, namely, Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3) so as to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. The very fact that the injured eye witnesses soon after the incident were taken to hospital, is itself sufficient to show the state of mind, they were having at the relevant time. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is too much to expect that they would first go to the Police Station and state the details of the manner in which the occurrence took place. 19. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is too much to expect that they would first go to the Police Station and state the details of the manner in which the occurrence took place. 19. Sans insignificant and minor contraction here and there, both the injured eye witnesses i.e., Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3), are consistent on their version on material particulars and aspects of the prosecution case, which further finds corroboration from the deposition of Preetam Singh (PW-9). Their testimony is further corroborated with the medical evidence, which substantiates the fact that the two injured eye witnesses suffered gunshot injuries at the hands of the accused appellants and none-else. Further, on the general tenor of the evidence deposed by the injured eye witnesses in the instant case at hand, the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence formed an opinion about the credibility thereof and in the normal circumstances, the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reason. It is settled that the totality of the situation has to be taken note of. Difference in some minor details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present that by itself would not prompt, the Court to reject the credible evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. Accordingly, conviction of the accused appellant for offence under Section 324 IPC is maintained. 20. So far as the sentence is concerned, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1985 and the appellants were convicted in the year 1989 for the occurrence of the year 1985. Furthermore, the instant appeal preferred by the appellants in the year 1989 before this Court has been pending since then. Thus, the appellants have faced the litigation for almost 27 years and therefore, ends of justice will meet, if the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- each. 21. The appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them during the course of investigation and trial and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) each, which shall be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment to the Trial Court. The amount so deposited, shall be paid to the injured Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3) Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) each, which shall be deposited within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment to the Trial Court. The amount so deposited, shall be paid to the injured Suresh Chand (PW-2) and Fateh Singh (PW-3) Rs. 20,000/- each, failing them to their surviving legal heirs, as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in default of payment of the aforesaid amount, the appellants shall undergo the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- as ordered by the Trial Court.For the reasons discussed herein above, this Criminal appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the impugned judgment and order of sentence as directed above.Appeal partly allowed. *******