JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, district Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 2005 (State Vs. Hira Lal and others) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on each. In case of default in deposit of fine, the appellants were directed to serve out further 02 years rigorous imprisonment. During pendency of appeal, the appellant no. 1 Hira Lal died and the appeal stood abated against Hira Lal vide order dated 18.10.2016. At the very outset it is worth mentioning that all the three appellants had applied for bail during pendency of appeal. Vide order dated 4.2.2009 passed by this Court the deceased appellant Hira Lal was enlarged on bail considering his old age. However, remaining two appellants Dhan Singh and Guddu were denied bail by the same order. Therefore, both of them had to remain in jail and as per report dated 6.1.2016 submitted by Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly, both of them after completing the entire period of sentence of 10 years and after deposit of he entire amount of fine by them have been released from jail on 6.9.2013. In view of the above, learned A.G.A. submitted that as the appellants have already undergone the entire period of sentence awarded to them by the trial court and have also deposited the fine, this appeal has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as having become infructuous. The aforesaid submission made by learned A.G.A. does not appeal to me. Only due to the reason that the appellants have already undergone the entire period of sentence awarded to them by the trial court and have deposited the fine too, the appeal does not become infructuous. In my considered view an appeal has to be decided on merits in order to ascertain the guilt or innocence of an accused person. That is why the right of appeal continues even after the death of the accused. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned A.G.A. Sri Shanti Prakash Patel. Perused the record. Some brief facts, as per prosecution case, are that a written report (Ext. Ka. That is why the right of appeal continues even after the death of the accused. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned A.G.A. Sri Shanti Prakash Patel. Perused the record. Some brief facts, as per prosecution case, are that a written report (Ext. Ka. 2) was lodged at Police Station Swar, district Rampur on 10.6.2003 by the complainant Lakhpat mentioning therein that on 30.5.2003 at about 10.00 A.M. a quarrel had taken place between his younger brother Raju's wife Triveni and wife of Hira Lal (deceased appellant) on the issue of a fight between their children, due to which his brother Raju had scolded the wife of Hira Lal. When Hira Lal and his sons, appellants Guddu and Dhan Singh returned home, Hira Lal's wife made complaint to them against Raju, whereupon, all of them started searching Raju and at about 8.00 P.M. in the night, when Raju alongwith his brother Lakhpat (complainant) was returning from the fields, they intercepted him on the way and started hurling filthy abuses. When Raju tried to stop them, the accused Hira Lal, who was armed with sharp edged dagger, his son Guddu armed with sharp edged 'Gupti' and his second son Dhan Singh, who had a sharp edged knife, attacked on Raju, inflicting injuries on his chest, waist and various other parts of his body. On alarm being raised, the witnesses Naval Kishor and Bhagwan Das reached the spot and they challenged the assailants After that all the accused persons fled away from the spot wielding their weapons in the air. The complainant immediately took his brother to the local hospital at Swar, from where he was referred to District Hospital, Rampur. The condition of the injured being serious, he was referred to Medical College, Meerut from District Hospital, Rampur. In the F.I.R. it is also mentioned that the complainant being busy in the treatment of his brother, could not lodge the F.I.R. earlier. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a case, at Crime No. 191 of 2003 under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants and the investigation started. The I.O. inspected the spot. He took in possession the blood stained shirt of the injured, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons. The I.O. inspected the spot. He took in possession the blood stained shirt of the injured, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons. The case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court where charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed against all the 3 accused persons to which all of them denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 9 witnesses including the injured Raju as P.W. 1, eye witness Bhagwan Das as P.W. 2, the complainant Lakhpat as P.W. 3, eye witness Naval Kishor as P.W. 4 and the scribe of the F.I.R. Surendra Singh as P.W. 6. Apart from these material witnesses, two doctors, Head Moharrir of P.S. Swar and the I.O. have been examined as formal witnesses by the prosecution. Dr. B.R. Jaiswal, who was posted at District Hospital, Rampur has been produced as P.W. 5. Dr. Rajat Agrawal who was posted at Medical College, Meerut has been produced as P.W. 7, Head Moharrir Con. Ram Bahadur Gangwar, who had prepared the check report and has made necessary entries in G.D. has been examined as P.W. 8 and the I.O. Sri Nawab Singh has been examined as P.W. 9. Out of 5 material witnesses, except P.W. 1 Raju i.e. the injured, none has supported the prosecution case and all of them have turned hostile. However, the learned trial court, finding the testimony of P.W. 1 injured Raju, reliable and trustworthy, convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment. The only point for determination in this appeal is that whether the trial judge has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of the sole testimony of the injured witness ? A perusal of the statement of P.W. 1 injured Raju shows that he has started his deposition stating about the motive behind the occurrence. The motive is also narrated in the F.I.R. itself that wife of Hira Lal was scolded by the injured Raju. P.W. 1 has stated that when Hira Lal and his sons Guddu and Dhan Singh returned home, the wife of Hira Lal complained that Raju had scolded her using abusive language. The motive is also narrated in the F.I.R. itself that wife of Hira Lal was scolded by the injured Raju. P.W. 1 has stated that when Hira Lal and his sons Guddu and Dhan Singh returned home, the wife of Hira Lal complained that Raju had scolded her using abusive language. P.W. 1 has further stated that when he was returning from his field at about 8.00 P.M. on the same day, the appellants caught him from behind and started throwing filthy abuses against him. When he tried to prevent them from using abusive language, they started inflicting injuries by the sharp edge weapons. Raju has further stated that he sustained injuries on his chest and waist and he recognized the assailants in the moon light. He has further stated that on his alarm, Bhagwan Das and Naval Kishor reached on the spot and challenged the accused persons who ran away from the spot. P.W. 1 has further stated that when he returned from Medical College, Meerut after getting medical treatment, his brother lodged the F.I.R. He has further stated that the I.O. had taken in possession his blood stained shirt and had prepared its recovery memo. P.W. 1 has duly proved the recovery memo of the shirt which has been marked as Ext. Ka. 1. P.W. 1 has been cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but nothing has been elicited to cast a shadow of doubt on the veracity of his statement. He has been throughout cogent and consistent on his stand. During cross examination he has stated that Hira Lal is his step brother. They lived in the same house. There was no enmity between them before the instant occurrence. He has stated that they are five brothers in all. He has one real brother and three step brothers. P.W. has denied the suggestion given by defence counsel that he sustained injuries in some other incident. P.W. 2 is Bhagwan Das whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R. as a witness. However, he has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, but he has admitted that he knows the accused Hira Lal, Guddu and Dhan Singh and also the injured Raju. He has also admitted that his field is situated at a distance of ½ km. from the field of Raju. P.W. 3 is the complainant Lakhpat. However, he has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, but he has admitted that he knows the accused Hira Lal, Guddu and Dhan Singh and also the injured Raju. He has also admitted that his field is situated at a distance of ½ km. from the field of Raju. P.W. 3 is the complainant Lakhpat. He has also turned hostile but has admitted that in the morning on the day of occurrence at about 10.00 A.M. a quarrel had taken place between the wives of Hiral Lal and Raju. He has also admitted that at about 7.45 P.M. when he and his brother Raju were returning from the fields, some unknown persons attacked on Raju by sharp edged weapons but he has denied to have seen any assailant. P.W. 3 has also admitted that he took the injured Raju at Swar Hospital and from there to District Hospital, Rampur and from there to Medical College, Meerut. He has admitted that after about 10 - 12 days he lodged the F.I.R. However, he has denied that the scribe Surendra Singh had written the report on his dictation. He has admitted his signatures on the written report but has stated that the police had taken his signature on a blank paper though at the same time he has admitted the presence of scribe Surendra Singh at the police station. P.W. 4 is Naval Kishor, who too is named as an eye witness in the F.I.R. This witness has also turned hostile. However he has admitted that his field is situated on the same road on which the fields of Raju is situated. P.W. 5 is Dr. B.R. Jaiswal who has stated that on 30.5.2003 at about 10.20 P.M. he has medically examined the injuries of Raju and had found the following injuries on his body : 1. I.W. 2 cm x 0.8 cm x not probed on the right side front of chest 4 cm, supramedial to the right nipple kept W. 2. I.W. 2.5 cm x 1 cm x not probed on the left side front of the chest 8 cm away from the left nipple at 1 O'clock position. 3. I.W. 2 cm x 0.5 cm x M. deep on the left upper arm, upper part outer side. 4. I.W. 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep on the back of left elbow joint. 5. 3. I.W. 2 cm x 0.5 cm x M. deep on the left upper arm, upper part outer side. 4. I.W. 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep on the back of left elbow joint. 5. I.W. 3 cm x 1 cm x not probed on the part lateral aspect at the left side chest, back, near part auxiliary fold, kept W. 6. Six I.W. from 1 cm x 0.5 cm x M deep to 3 cm x 1 cm x not probed on the whole of right side back of chest here and there. 7. Three (3) I.W. on the left side back of chest as left scapular are measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x M deep to 2.5 cm x 1 cm x not probed, kept W. P.W. 5 has stated that the condition of the injured was very serious. His pulse and blood pressure were missing so he referred him to District Hospital, Rampur. P.W. 5 has also stated that all the injuries sustained by the injured might have been sustained on 30.5.2003 at 8 P.M. by sharp edged weapons. P.W. 6 is the scribe of the F.I.R., though he has turned hostile, yet he has admitted the fact that the written report is in his hand writing. However, he has stated that he has written it on the dictation of the police. During his cross-examination this witness has also admitted the fact that Lakhpat/complainant was sitting with him at the police station at the time when the police was dictating the F.I.R. but Lakhpat did not ask him as to why he is writing a false F.I.R. against his step brother and his sons. P.W. 7 Dr. Rajat Agrawal was posted at Medical College, Meerut at the time of occurrence and he has stated that the injured was under his treatment whose surgery was performed by a team of doctors including him. He has further stated that during x-ray free air was found in his left valve and during ultrasound water was found on the left side of his chest. The doctor has clearly stated that the condition of the injured was so serious that had the medical aid been not provided to him within time he could have expired. P.W. 8 is the Head Moharrir R.B. Gangwar. The doctor has clearly stated that the condition of the injured was so serious that had the medical aid been not provided to him within time he could have expired. P.W. 8 is the Head Moharrir R.B. Gangwar. He has stated that on 10.6.2003 Lakhpat had lodged a written report against accused Hira Lal and his two sons on the basis of which he prepared the check F.I.R. and made relevant entries in the G.D. He has proved the check F.I.R. as Ext. Ka. 8 and G.D. Entry as Ext. Ka. 9. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of this case who has filed the photostat copy of the statements of witnesses Lakhpat, Naval Kishor, Bhagwan Das and Surendra Singh and had proved them as Ext. Ka 12, Ext. Ka 13, Ext. Ka 14 and Ext. Ka 15 respectively. He has stated that all these witnesses, who have denied to have given any statement to the I.O. during investigation, have not stated the truth, therefore, he is filing the copies of their statements supporting the prosecution case. The I.O. has also stated that he was provided the blood stained shirt by the witnesses. He has proved the site plan as Ext. Ka. 10 and charge-sheet as Ext. Ka 11. The court below after a detailed discussion of the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that there was no ground to disbelieve the statement of the injured witness who has categorically stated about the complicity of the appellants in this case. The court below has also expressed its view that only due to the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile, the whole prosecution case can not be discarded. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to evidenciary value of statements of hostile witnesses, the court below found the prosecution case worthy of credence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to evidenciary value of statements of hostile witnesses, the court below found the prosecution case worthy of credence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Learned amicus curie arguing on behalf of appellants has assailed the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment mainly on the following three grounds :- (1) There is delay of more than 10 days in lodging the F.I.R. which has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation, (2) The court below did not consider the fact that except the injured witness, none of the witness has supported the prosecution case, (3) The injured witness has falsely implicated the appellants due to old enmity on account of landed property. On the aforesaid grounds, learned amicus curie has contended that the conviction of the appellants being contrary to the documentary as well as oral evidence, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that in a catena of judgments, the Apex Court has laid down the law that the entire evidence of hostile witness should not be discarded or thrown away by the court and the court may rely on that part of the statement of a hostile witness which corroborates the prosecution case. Learned A.G.A. has further contended that the testimony of injured witness Raju in this case being totally unblemished and unshaken, inspire confidence. He has further contended that the reason for the witnesses turning hostile in this case, is obvious and natural in view of the fact that all the assailants are the family members of injured living in the same house. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been properly explained in the F.I.R. itself where it is clearly mentioned that the complainant being busy in the treatment of his brother could not come to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the law as laiddown by Hon'ble Apex court in a series of judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the instant appeal has no force and it is liable to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and most recently in Devraj Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and most recently in Devraj Vs. State of Chhatisgarh; 2016(6) Supreme 30 has reiterated the law regarding appreciation of testimony of a hostile witness as under : "The evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile can be relied if there are some other material on the basis of which said evidence can be corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is fully reliable even though the witness has been declared hostile." The facts of the case in hand clearly show that the date, time, place and manner of occurrence find support with the statements of even hostile witnesses. Though all the hostile witnesses have denied to have given any statement to the I.O., to the contrary, the I.O. has stated that all of them had stated before him in favour of prosecution case. The I.O. has filed the copies of their statements and has duly proved those statements in court which all have been marked as exhibits. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of I.O. in absence of any evidence to show that the I.O. was inimical to the appellants. In so far as the contention, that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of statement of a single witness is concerned, as per settled legal position, it is the quality and not the quantity of witnesses which matters. There is no doubt that the instant case rests on the sole testimony of injured witness, P.W. 1 but the testimony of P.W. 1 has been found reliable and trustworthy by this Court which can form the basis of conviction. The law regarding the testimony of injured witness has also been well settled in a series of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex court. In Balwan Vs. State of Haryana; (2014) 13 SCC 560 (SC) the Apex Court has observed as under :- "Evidence of injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Injury to witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and because the witness would not want to let the actual assailant go unpunished." In Kunjumon Vs. State of Haryana; (2014) 13 SCC 560 (SC) the Apex Court has observed as under :- "Evidence of injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Injury to witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and because the witness would not want to let the actual assailant go unpunished." In Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerala; (2012) 13 SCC 750 the Apex Court has held as under :- "Evidence of a victim of a crime must be placed on a somewhat higher pedestal in terms of credibility attached to it, than evidence of any other witness." In Mohd. Ishaque Vs. State of West Bengal; (2013) 14 SCC 581 the Apex Court has observed as under :- "It is unlikely that an injured witness would spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent person.......... Whether witnesses are interested persons and whether they had deposed out of some motive cannot be the sole criterion for judging credibility of a witness, but the main criterion would be whether their physical presence at the place of occurrence was possible and probable." In Mano Dutt Vs. State of U.P.; (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Apex Court held as under :- "Ordinarily an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in bargain protect real culprit - Further held, convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness" In view of the above cited legal position and considering the entire facts and circumstances, there does not appear any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned requiring any interference by this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. As the appellants have already undergone the entire period of sentence, there is no need to pass any further order. The lower courts' record be sent to the court below alongwith a copy of this order. Rs. 11000/- be paid to Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned Amicus Curiae for efficiently assisting this Court.