JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal is filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.3 Shimla in criminal case No. 43/2 of 2006 title State of H.P. versus Vijendra Kumar decided on 8.1.2007. Brief facts of the case 2. It is alleged by prosecution that on 5.3.2006 at 1.15 PM at NH 22 Tara Devi near Goyal Motors accused was driving vehicle Alto Car bearing No. HP-03C-1281 in rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and public safety of others upon public road and struck the vehicle with complainant Gurpal Singh who was walking by side of road and caused simple injuries on his person. It is alleged by prosecution that rapat Ext.PW7/A and statement of complainant Ext.PW2/A recorded and on the basis of statement of complainant FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered. It is alleged by prosecution that I.O. prepared spot map Ext.PW8/B as per factual position and it is further alleged by prosecution that vehicle having registration No. HP-03C-1281 took into possession along with documents vide seizure memos Ext.PW4/A and Ext.PW1/A. It is alleged by prosecution that I.O. filed application Ext.PW5/A before medical officer for medical examination of injured and obtained MLC Ext.PW5/B. 3. Notice of accusation put to accused by learned Trial Court under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on 11.9.2006. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined eight oral witnesses in all and also tendered documentaries evidence. 5. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused qua offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC by way of giving him benefit of doubt. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal. 7. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal:- Point No.1 Whether appeal filed by State of H.P. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? Point No.2 Final Order. 9. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons 9.1. PW1 Jagdish has stated that he is posted as Sub Inspector since 2005 and he joined investigation on 5.3.2006. Point No.2 Final Order. 9. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons 9.1. PW1 Jagdish has stated that he is posted as Sub Inspector since 2005 and he joined investigation on 5.3.2006. He has stated that accused handed over vehicle No. HP-03C-1281 along with documents i.e. R.C., insurance certificate to Investigating Agency vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that he has signed seizure memo as marginal witness. He has stated that other witness namely Mahavir also signed seizure memo. He has stated that seizure memo was prepared in police station. 9.2 PW2 Gurpal Singh injured has stated that he is owner of maruti car No. 24A-08295. He has stated that on 5.3.2006 he along with his friend Inderjit came to Tara Devi Shimla at 6.30 AM for service of vehicle in Goyal Motors workshop. He has stated that at 1.15 PM he and his friend Inderjit were moving upon side of public road at a distance of 100 yards from Goyal Motors to take lunch then Alto car No. HP-03C-1281 came from Shimla side and struck against him due to fast speed. He has stated that accused was driving vehicle No. HP-03C-1281 at the time of accident. He has stated that police officials came in hospital and his statement was recorded. He has stated that MLC is Mark A and further stated that his X-ray and CT Scan were also conducted. He has stated that his statement is Ext.PW2/A. He has denied suggestion that he sustained injuries due to fall. He has denied suggestion that he requested the accused to take him to IGMC in his vehicle. He has stated that accident took place at National Highway. He has denied suggestion that accident was caused due to his own fault. He has denied suggestion that he was walking upon middle of road. He has stated that Goyal Motors Agency is situated at a distance of 100 yards from place of accident. 9.3 PW3 Inder Singh eye witenss of incident has stated that he and injured on 5.3.2006 came to Tara Devi Goyal Motors Agency for service of vehicle. He has stated that at about 1.15 PM he and injured were moving upon side of public road for consumption of lunch. He has stated that vehicle having registration No. HP-03C-1281 Alto came in fast speed and struck with injured Gurpal Singh. He has stated that at about 1.15 PM he and injured were moving upon side of public road for consumption of lunch. He has stated that vehicle having registration No. HP-03C-1281 Alto came in fast speed and struck with injured Gurpal Singh. He has stated that injured Gurpal Singh sustained injuries and he was brought to IGMC for his medical treatment. He has stated that police officials also came. He identified accused in Court and stated that accident took place due to negligence of accused. He has admitted that injured was brought to hospital in vehicle of accused. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely against the accused. 9.4 PW4 Anju Thakur has stated that accused is known to her. She has stated that accused has produced driving licence in her presence which was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/A. 9.5 PW5 Dr. R.S. Dadhwal has stated that in the month of March 2006 he was posted in IGMC. He has stated that on 5.3.2006 at about 2.25 PM he examined Gurpal Singh who was brought to him with alleged history of public road accident. He has stated that Gurpal Singh was hit by vehicle No. HP-03C-1281 while he was walking near Goyal Motors resulting in multiple injuries. He has stated that he examined the injured and found following injuries. (1) Contusion injury on back region, red in colour and tenderness was present. (2) Contusion injury on right hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (3) Contusion injury on left hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (4) Contusion injury was on chest. (5) Blunt injury upon abdomen. (6) Contusion injury was found on lumposacral region. He has stated that he advised X-ray of spine, right hip and chest. He has further stated that all injuries mentioned in MLC were simple in nature and duration of injury was less than three hours. He has stated that he issued MLC. He has also stated that injuries mentioned in MLC Ext.PW5/B could be caused in road accident. In cross examination he has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC could be sustained by falling on hard surface. 9.6 PW6 Lokender Singh has stated that he is photogrpaher and on 6.3.2006 he joined the investigation. He has stated that he took photographs Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-3 and negatives of photographs are Ext.PW6/A- 4 to Ext.PW6/A-6. In cross examination he has stated that injuries mentioned in MLC could be sustained by falling on hard surface. 9.6 PW6 Lokender Singh has stated that he is photogrpaher and on 6.3.2006 he joined the investigation. He has stated that he took photographs Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-3 and negatives of photographs are Ext.PW6/A- 4 to Ext.PW6/A-6. 9.7 PW7 C. Param Dev has stated that since 2½ years he is posted as constable and he brought the nakal rapat. He has stated that rapat roznamcha Ext.PW7/A is correct as per original record. 9.8 PW8 HC Manoj Kumar has stated that he is posted as I.O. and on 5.3.2006 he received the information that at place Tara Devi Goyal Motors accident took place and injured was brought to IGMC. He has stated that he recorded statement of injured Ext.PW2/A and thereafter FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered. He has stated that he prepared site plan Ext.PW8/B and driving licence took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/A and RC and insurance policy took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that MLC of injured obtained and X-ray film also obtained. He has stated that photographs obtained and negatives of photographs were also obtained by him. He has stated that he recorded statements of prosecution witnesses as per their versions. He has stated that after completion of investigation file was handed over to SHO and further stated that SHO prepared investigation report. He has stated that accused himself brought the injured to IGMC for his medical treatment. He has denied suggestion that injured himself fell upon hard surface. 10. Following documentaries evidence adduced by the prosecution. (1) Ext.PW8/A is FIR No. 40 dated 5.3.2006 registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. (2) Ext.PW2/A is statement of injured Gurpal Singh recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (3) Ext.PW7/A is nakal rapat No. 19 dated 5.3.2006. (4) Ext.PW8/B is site plan. (5) Ext.PW4/A is seizure memo of driving licence. (6) Ext.PW1/A is seizure memo of vehicle No. HP-03C-1281 and documents i.e. RC and insurance policy. (7) Ext.PW5/A is application filed by I.O. to medical officer for medical examination of Gurpal Singh injured. (8) Ext.P3 is copy of driving licence. (9) Ext.PW5/B is MLC of injured Gurpal Singh. (10) Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-3 are photographs and Ext.PW6/A-4 to Ext.PW6/A-6 are negatives of photographs. 11. (7) Ext.PW5/A is application filed by I.O. to medical officer for medical examination of Gurpal Singh injured. (8) Ext.P3 is copy of driving licence. (9) Ext.PW5/B is MLC of injured Gurpal Singh. (10) Ext.PW6/A-1 to Ext.PW6/A-3 are photographs and Ext.PW6/A-4 to Ext.PW6/A-6 are negatives of photographs. 11. Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that on 5.3.2006 his vehicle did not meet with any accident. He has stated that he went to Goyal Motors Tara Devi for repair of his vehicle and when he was coming back he given lift to injured. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated in present case. 12. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State that criminal offence under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is offence against public at large and same is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused testimony of PW2 Gurpal Singh injured and PW3 Inder Singh who are eye witnesses of accident. PW2 injured has specifically stated in positive manner that Alto car No. HP- 03C-1281 was approaching from Shimla to Solan in fast speed upon public road and same struck with injured PW2 Gurpal Singh and caused injuries upon body of injured namely Gurpal Singh. Testimony of PW2 is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. Testimony of PW2 is corroborated with independent eye witness namely PW3 Inder Singh. PW3 Inder Singh has stated in positive manner that Alto car No. HP-03C-1281 came in fast speed and struck with injured PW2 and caused injuries upon body of PW2 Gurpal Singh. Testimony of PW3 is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 13. Testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 are also corroborated with testimony of medical officer PW5 namely Dr. R.S.Dadhwal who has medically examined the injured immediately on 5.3.2006 at 2.30 PM. It is proved on record that injured namely Gurpal Singh had sustained six injuries due to accident i.e. (1) Contusion injury on back region, red in colour and tenderness was present. (2) Contusion injury on right hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (3) Contusion injury on left hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (4) Contusion injury was on chest. (5) Blunt injury upon abdomen. (6) Contusion injury on lumposacral region. (2) Contusion injury on right hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (3) Contusion injury on left hip, red in colour and tenderness was present. (4) Contusion injury was on chest. (5) Blunt injury upon abdomen. (6) Contusion injury on lumposacral region. Testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 are also corroborated with MLC Ext.PW5/B. Testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 are also corroborated with other corroborative evidence of PW1 Jagdish Ram, PW4 Anju Thakur, PW6 Lokinder Singh, PW7 Param Dev and PW8 Manoj Kumar. 14. Testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 are also corroborated with documentaries evidence i.e. FIR Ext.PW8/A, statement of injured recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PW2/A, nakal rapat No. 19 Ext.PW7/A, site plan Ext.PW8/B, seizure memo Ext.PW4/A, seizure memo Ext.PW1/A, MLC Ext.PW5/B and X-ray films placed on record. 15. It is well settled law that rash and negligent driving upon public path is a criminal offence against the public at large. It is well settled law that all drivers driving vehicles upon public path are under legal obligation to drive the vehicle in cautious manner with object to save the life of general public at large. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that there is material contradiction between testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 who are eye witnesses of accident and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused testimonies of PWs 2 and 3. There is no material contradiction between testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 which goes to the root of case. It is well settled law that minor contradictions are bound to come in criminal case when statements of prosecution witnesses are recorded after a gape of sufficient time. In present case accident took place on 5.3.2006 at about 1.15 Noon and testimonies of prosecution witnesses were recorded in Court on 7.11.2006 and 12.12.2006. See (2010)9 SCC 567 title C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu . See AIR 1972 SC 2020 title Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. See AIR 1985 SC 48 title State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony. See AIR 1983 SC 753 title Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat. See AIR 2007 SC 2257 title State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash. See AIR 1972 SC 2020 title Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. See AIR 1985 SC 48 title State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony. See AIR 1983 SC 753 title Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat. See AIR 2007 SC 2257 title State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash. See (2009)11 SCC 588 title Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. See (2009)9 SCC 626 title State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others. See AIR 1988 SC 696 title Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat. See AIR 1999 SC 3544 title Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. See (2000)1 SCC 247 title State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another. See (2004) 10 SCC 94 title Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others. See (2012)10 SCC 433 title Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan. Concept falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal cases. See AIR 1980 SC 957 title Bhee Ram vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1971 SC 2505 title Rai singh vs. State of Haryana. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that testimonies of PW2 Gurpal Singh and PW3 Inder Singh are not sufficient for conviction is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Testimonies of PW2 Gurpal Singh and PW3 Inder Singh eye witnesses are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. It is well settled law that conviction can be sustained on testimony of single witness in criminal case if same is turstworthy and reliable. See AIR 2016 SC (Weekly) 300 title Sudip Sen alias Biltu vs. State of West Bengal. See JT 2005(5) SC 555 Seeman alias Veeranam vs. State. See AIR 1973 SC 944 Jose vs. State of Kerala. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that fact of rash and negligent driving is not proved as per testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses are required for proof of any fact. It is well settled law that Courts are concerned with merits of statements of particular witnesses and Courts are not concerned with number of witnesses examined by prosecution. See (1997)2 Crimes 175 (Delhi) title Raja vs. State. As per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 no particular number of witnesses are required for proof of any fact. It is well settled law that Courts are concerned with merits of statements of particular witnesses and Courts are not concerned with number of witnesses examined by prosecution. See (1997)2 Crimes 175 (Delhi) title Raja vs. State. It is well settled law that Courts should judge quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. See (2008)8 JT 650 title State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal and others. It is well settled law that law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses should be examined in proof of fact. It is well settled law that testimony of witnesse could be classified into three categories. (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. See AIR 2003 SC 854 title Lallu Manjhi and another vs. State of Jharkhand. 19. Facts of case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused i.e. Latest HLJ 2009(HP) 588 title Kushal Singh vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 1360 title State of H.P. vs. Parmodh Singh, Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 954 title State of H.P. vs. Chandu Lal, Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 885 title State of H.P. vs. Bhagat Singh, Latest HLJ 2008(HP) 712 title State of H.P. vs. Balak Ram and facts of present case are entirely different and distinguishable and case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused are not applicable upon facts of present case. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that accident took place due to own fault of injured when injured was walking upon middle of public path is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Accused did not lead any positive evidence that accident took place due to fault of injured. Plea of accused is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 21. It is held that judgment of learned Trial Court is perverse and it is further held that learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record relating to criminal offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. 21. It is held that judgment of learned Trial Court is perverse and it is further held that learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record relating to criminal offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. It is held that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had driven vehicle upon public way in rash or negligent manner and endangered human life of injured person and caused hurt to injured endangering his life. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2(Final Order) 22. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is accepted. Judgment passed by learned Trial Court is set aside and accused Vijendra Kumar son of late Shri Ram Nath is convicted under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Now convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Convict be produced before Court on 05.08.2016.