JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.08.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. S.T. 17(GT/A) of 2015 (type-1), whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Section 332 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) each for the same offence, in default to pay fine, both the appellants shall suffer S.I. for 15 (fifteen) days. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that one Sri Krishnadhan Debnath of Birganj P.S. had submitted a written complaint to the effect that on the basis of a secret information of selling liquor illegally they have raided the sweet shop of the accused persons. During the search operation the police personnel seized 50 liters of country made liquor from the shop of the accused Papan Poddar, but the accused Papan Poddar along with another Nitai Poddar became violent and interfered with the discharge of official duties of the police personnel. According to the complaint, the two accused appellants had also assaulted the police personnel by fist and blows and tried to kill one constable namely, Debashish Chakraborty, by throttling. However, he was saved by other police personnel. Some of the police personnel also received injuries. Accordingly, the officer-in-charge of the police station registered a case as Birganj P.S. case No. 39/2015, U/S 353/333/307 of the IPC and he himself conducted the investigation and finally, submitted the charge sheet against both the accused persons under Sections 353/332/307 of IPC. 3. After commitment by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amarpur, the following charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded their innocence and claimed to be tried. The charges are reproduced below:- Firstly:- That both of you on 09.06.2015 at about 2100 hours at Tetan Bazar, under PS-Birganj, Dist-Gomati Tripura, did use criminal force upon the police person in the execution of his duties as public servant or with intent to prevent or deter the said police persons from discharging their duties as public servant, and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 353 of IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly:- That you, on the same date, time and place, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to T/4047 Debashish Chakraborty,T/3718 Aga Kishore Jamatia and T/3744 Sukhen Sarkar, a public servant in the discharge of their duties as such public servant and thereby committed and offence punishable u/s 333 of IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly:- That on the same date time and place in furtherance of common intention and under such circumstances that if by that act you has caused death of T/4077 Debasish Chakraborty and you would have been guilty of murder and you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and within my cognizance. 4. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses and produced nine documents, which includes FIR (Exbt-1), endorsement of PW.6 in the FIR (Exbt-1/1), portion of statement of PW.4, Bimal Majumder recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C (Exbt-2), Printed form of FIR (Exbt-3), hand sketch map (Exbt-4), index of the hand sketch map (Exbt-5), series- certified copy of GD entry nos. 25 and 32 dated 9.6.2015 (Exbt-6), injury report of Debashish Chakraborty (Exbt-7) and injury report of Sukhen Sarkar (Exbt-8). 5. The accused persons also produced two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2, namely, Amal Majumder and Bishu Das respectively. 6. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the respective counsels of both the sides have formulated three points for decision, which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “1. Whether the accused person used criminally force upon the police personnel with intent to prevent them from discharging their duties. 2. Whether the accused persons caused grievous hurt upon constables Debashish Charkaborty, Aga Kishore Jamatia and Sukhen Sarkar while they were discharging their official duties, and 3. Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention attempted to commit murder of constable Debashish Chakraborty as alleged.” 7. Learned Trial Court after perusing all the evidence and materials on record has passed judgment on 21.08.2017, whereby and whereunder the two accused appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the same offence, in default to pay fine, both the appellants shall suffer S.I. for fifteen days. 8. 5,000/- each for the same offence, in default to pay fine, both the appellants shall suffer S.I. for fifteen days. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. S.T.17 (GT/A) of 2015 (type-1), the accused-appellants preferred this appeal. 9. I have gone through the evidence on record. All the prosecution witnesses except P.W-4 are the police personnel and they have stated the same facts as have been stated in the complaint application that on the basis of a secret information the police personnel had raided the shop of the accused-appellants Papan Poddar where he was selling country liquor from his shop illegally, and during the raid they found and seized 50 liters of country made liquor. The accused-appellant, Papan Poddar, became violent and tried to resist the police personnel from discharging their official duties. Suddenly, Nitai Poddar arrived at the spot and also assisted Papan Poddar to resist the police personnel from discharging their official duties. They also inflicted some fist and blows to the police personnel and tried to kill one constable, namely, Debashish Chakraborty. The cross examination by the defense could not shake the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. P.W-4 was declared hostile at the time of his examination. 10. I have perused the examination of the accused-appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In their examination under Section 313 they have denied the allegations and the evidence, which were recorded against them. They have stated that no country made liquor was found but they were detained. From a bare reading of their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C it is revealed that they did not give any explanation why they were arrested. 11. DW.1 and DW.2 in their statement before the Trial Court have also failed to explain the reason for the arrest of the appellants. From their evidence it is clear that police entered into the shop of the appellant Papan Poddar. So, the presence of police personnel in the said shop of appellant Papan Poddar is proved and the prosecution witnesses also have been able to prove the scuffling, altercation, fist and blows inflicted upon the police personnel by the appellants. According to me, the chain of circumstances have not been missed in the present case. So, the presence of police personnel in the said shop of appellant Papan Poddar is proved and the prosecution witnesses also have been able to prove the scuffling, altercation, fist and blows inflicted upon the police personnel by the appellants. According to me, the chain of circumstances have not been missed in the present case. Further, exbt- 7 and exbt-8 reveals that the two police personnel namely, Debashish Chakraborty and Sukhen Sarkar sustained injuries. 12. According to the learned Trial Judge, the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 are not trustworthy and credible in regard to the evidence of P.W-4, who was declared hostile by prosecution, the learned Trial Court has found that the said witness was discarded by prosecution with reference to his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced below: “……… and when I went, I saw that Nitai Poddar alias Dilip had been abusing the police in slang language and trying to nab a bag of liquor and his son Papan Poddar from the police. Then, I saw that Nitai Poddar and Papan Poddar had started assaulting the police.” 13. The learned Trial Court in his findings has observed that:- “However, it is not a Rule of evidence that in every case independent persons should be examined even if they do not support the prosecution version. The number of witnesses is immaterial, rather the quality of evidence is important. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 651 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time honored principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on the value provided by each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is thus, the quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence, as had been proved by Section 134 of the Evidence Act.” 14. The legal system has laid emphasis on the value provided by each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is thus, the quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence, as had been proved by Section 134 of the Evidence Act.” 14. The learned Trial Court has also placed reliance on a decision in Tahir v. State(Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 at page 341, wherein the Apex Court has made the following observation:- “6…… In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence, The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.” 15. Applying the above ratio enunciated by the Apex Court the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 332 of IPC. I find no infirmity in placing reliance upon the impugned decision as stated above, by the learned Trial Court. However, this Court after considering the nature of offence committed by the accused-appellants is of the opinion that conviction and sentence to suffer R.I for three months may be modified. 16. During the course of hearing, Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel submitted that both the accused has suffered imprisonment for one month and they may be discharged from suffering imprisonment for the rest period of two months on the ground that both the accused-appellants are very poor and one of the accused-appellants Nitai Poddar is seriously ill. So, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants this Court is of the opinion that substantial justice would be rendered to the victim police personnel if the fine money is increased. So, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants this Court is of the opinion that substantial justice would be rendered to the victim police personnel if the fine money is increased. Accordingly, the period of sentence/imprisonment already suffered by the appellants is hereby set off but the accused-appellants have to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- each instead of Rs. 5,000(Rupees five thousand) only. The fine money is to be deposited to the Trial Court who on receipt of the same will make payment to the Officer-in-charge, Birganj police station which will be distributed to the injured police personnel. Since the accused-appellants are on bail their bail bonds shall be discharged on payment of the fine money of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) only by each of the accused-appellants as indicated above, which is to be paid within a period of 1(one) month from the date of the judgment. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of. 18. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of the judgment to the learned Trial Court forthwith.