JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J. 1. Accused-appellant Bhola Singh faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 665 of 2001 (State v. Bhola Singh, Case Crime No. 144 of 2001), under Sections 376 and 302 IPC, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, which came to be heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 17.09.2003 convicting accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-under Section 376 IPC, in default of payment of fine, three month additional imprisonment; and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-under Section 302 IPC; in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused-appellant has sought intervention of this Court by filing present criminal appeal. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 03.07.2001 at about 01:00 PM, victim daughter of PW1 (name withheld by us) aged about ten years was present alone in the hut (madai) to look after the field. When PW1 and Ram Nath arrived there at about 01:00 PM, they saw that accused-appellant Bhola assaulting the victim with Khurpi. On seeing this, they raised alarm then accused-appellant tried to ran away from hut but they caught hold accused-appellant with blood stained Khurpi at the distance of fifty yards from hut. On alarm many persons of village came at the spot, and saw that victim was lying in the hut, dead with blood, her neck was cut with other injuries on the body and her genital was bleeding. It appeared that she was raped and murdered by accused. Underwear of accused was also blood stained. With the help of villagers, accused Bhola Singh and blood stained khurpi with dead body of victim were taken to police station in Tractor Trolly. PW1 presented a written report Ex.Ka1 getting scribed by one Ram Nath in the police station concerned. On the basis of Ex.Ka1, PW3 Suresh Singh registered a chik FIR, Ex.Ka5, as case crime no.144 of 2001 against accused under Section 376 and 302 IPC and entry of case was made in General Diary on the same day, copy where of is Ex.Ka6 is on record. 3. On the basis of Ex.Ka1, PW3 Suresh Singh registered a chik FIR, Ex.Ka5, as case crime no.144 of 2001 against accused under Section 376 and 302 IPC and entry of case was made in General Diary on the same day, copy where of is Ex.Ka6 is on record. 3. PW5 S.I. Narendra Pratap Narain Singh commenced investigation, recorded statement of PW1, prepared recovery memo of blood stained khurpi recovered from the possession of accused, Ex.Ka3; took one shirt, underwear of accused in his possession, prepared memo thereof Ex.Ka7; recorded statement of accused; held inquest over the dead body of victim and got postmortem report. 4. S.I. Parvez Alam prepared panchayatnama, Ex.Ka2, and other papers relating thereto. Dead body of victim was duly sealed and sent to U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur Nagar for postmortem. He recorded statement of S.I. Parvez Alam who visited spot and prepared site plan, Ex.Ka14, collected blood stained and simple earth from spot and prepared memo thereof Ex.Ka15. 5. PW4 Dr. O.N. Trivedi conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and prepared postmortem report Ex.Ka9, expressing his opinion that death was possible one day prior to postmortem due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries. Injury no.8 might have been caused due to rape or its attempt. 6. PW5, after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted chargesheet, Ex.Ka15, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 7. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Judge for trial where from it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar for disposal in accordance with law. 8. 6. PW5, after completing entire formalities of investigation submitted chargesheet, Ex.Ka15, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 7. Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Session Judge for trial where from it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar for disposal in accordance with law. 8. Trial Court framed charge against accused-appellant under Sections 376 and 302 IPC on 22.10.2001 which reads as under: ^^eSa pUæHkku vij l= U;k;k/kh'k d{k la[;k&11] dkuiqj uxj vki Hkksys flag ij fuEufyf[kr vkjksi vkjksfir djrk gaw %& ;g fd fnukad 3-7-2001 dks 1%00 cts fnu ds igys fdlh le; oknh ds [ksr esa eM+S;k] xzke tkSlgu [ksM+k] vUrxZr Fkkuk egjktiqj] ftyk dkuiqj uxj esa vkius oknh eqdnek dh ukckfyx yM+dh dqŒ js[kk mez yxHkx 10 o"kZ ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius /kkjk 376 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks fd esjs ÁlaKku esa gSA ;g fd mijksDr frfFk o LFkku ij vkius fnu ds 1%00 cts dqŒ js[kk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus ds ckn] tkucw>dj mldh gR;k dj nh vkSj bl Ádkj vkius HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 302 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks fd esjs ÁlaKku esa gSA ,rn~}kjk vkidks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkidk ijh{k.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk mDr vkjksiksa ds vUrxZr fd;k tkosA** “I, Chandra Bhan, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No 11, Kanpur Nagar charge you, Bhole Singh, as under: That in a hut on complainant's field at Village Khosahan Khera under P.S. Mahrajganj, Distt Kanpur Nagar, any time before 1 pm on 3.7.2001, you raped complainant’s minor daughter Km. Rekha, aged about 10, thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 376 IPC which is in the cognizance of this court. That on the aforesaid date and place you, after committing rape on Km Rekha at 1 pm, killed her, thereby committing an offence u/s 302 IPC which is in my cognizance. It is hereby directed that you be tried by this court for the aforesaid charges.” (English Translation by Court) 9. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, out of whom PW1 Ram Shanker is a witness of fact and PW2 Suresh Singh, PW3 Ram Deen Verma, PW4 Dr. O.N. Trivedi and PW5 Narendra Pratap Singh are formal witnesses. 10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, out of whom PW1 Ram Shanker is a witness of fact and PW2 Suresh Singh, PW3 Ram Deen Verma, PW4 Dr. O.N. Trivedi and PW5 Narendra Pratap Singh are formal witnesses. 10. PW1 is complainant and eye witness of incident whereas PW2 Constable Suresh Singh is scribe of FIR and witness of memo Ex.Ka3, 7, and 8. PW3 Constable Ram Deen Verma is a person taking dead body of victim to Hospital for postmortem. PW4 Dr. O.N. Trivedi is Medical Officer who conducted autopsy and PW5 S.I. Narendra Pratap Singh is Investigation Officer of the case. 11. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court explaining entire evidence and other incriminating facts and circumstances. Accused claimed false implication in the present case and denied prosecution story in toto. 12. Trial Court after hearing learned Counsel for parties and appreciating entire offence led by prosecution, found accused guilty under Section 302 and 376 IPC; convicted and sentenced as stated above. 13. We have heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for State and perused the record carefully 14. Learned Counsel for appellant took us through the record and advanced submission in the following manner: A. There is no motive to commit the crime. B. There is no independent witness. C. PW1 is father of deceased. D. As per prosecution case witness Nand Ram is said to have seen incident but he has not been produced from the side of prosecution, presumption under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act, 1872 goes against prosecution. E. There are so many contradiction in the statement of witnesses rendering prosecution case doubtful. F. Trial Court did not appreciate evidence of prosecution with care and cautious and could not be able to establish his case beyond doubt. G. Appellant is not arrested on spot in this regard, prosecution story is false and fabricated, he is liable to benefit of doubt deserves acquittal. 15. Per contra learned AGA supported impugned judgment and order and submitted that it is a case of eye witness account. Accused was seen killing the victim by PW1 and he was caught on the spot with blood stained khurpi, by people present there and medical evidence shows assassination of victim with rape. 15. Per contra learned AGA supported impugned judgment and order and submitted that it is a case of eye witness account. Accused was seen killing the victim by PW1 and he was caught on the spot with blood stained khurpi, by people present there and medical evidence shows assassination of victim with rape. Trial Court has rightly convicted accused and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Although time, date, place and manner of injuries as established by prosecution has not been disputed by accused but according to Advocate for defence he is not responsible for the present crime and has been falsely implicated. From the perusal of statements of PWs 1, 4 and 5, time date and place of incident stands established. 17. Only question remains for consideration is “whether accused is responsible for committing rape and murder of victim as set forth by prosecution and Trial Court has rightly convicted him or not”. 18. Now it would be apposite to consider, briefly, statement of witnesses. 19. This is a case of direct evidence rests upon the solitary statement of eye witness i.e. PW1 who deposed that on the fateful day his daughter (victim) aged about ten years was alone to look after field at about 01:00 PM. He and Ram Nath, residents of same village reached the field with meal, saw from the distance of 2025 steps that accused Bhola Singh was assaulting victim with khurpi. Both of them raised alarm then accused tried to ran away with blood stained khurpi but was caught by them at a distance of fifty yards from hut. At the same time Ram Pratap, Raju, Heera Lal, Ram Kumar, Ram Nath and Ram Shanker (not examined) also arrived there. After catching accused, they came to hut and saw that victim was lying dead with blood and her genital was bleeding. There were many injuries on her neck and body. Thereafter dead body and accused with blood stained khurpi were taken to police station by Tractor. Police held inquest and prepared memo of khurpi and panty (chhadi) of victim. He put his signature on panchayatnama Ex.Ka2 and memo of khurpi and panty Ex.Ka 3 and 4 respectively. 20. In the cross examination, he admitted that there was no door in hut and there was a crop in his field at the time of incident but there was no crop in surrounding field. He put his signature on panchayatnama Ex.Ka2 and memo of khurpi and panty Ex.Ka 3 and 4 respectively. 20. In the cross examination, he admitted that there was no door in hut and there was a crop in his field at the time of incident but there was no crop in surrounding field. Witness withstood long cross examination but no major contradiction could be brought on record through the same which may dent his testimonial statement. 21. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused claimed false implication on account of enmity and in response of question 19, he disclosed that prior to this incident PW1 was beaten by him and his brother regarding grazing of animal in his field but later on matter got subsided. Only this enmity has been pointed for his false implication but in our opinion this enmity is not sufficient to rope accused false in this heinous offence. Even otherwise as admitted by appellant previous matter has already been subsided with the intervention of villagers. Plea taken by accused for his defence inspires no confidence. 22. PW4 conducted postmortem of deceased and found seven incised wound and one lacerated wound as ante mortem injuries, which reads as under : 1. Incised wound size 5 cm x 2 cm x trachea cut at the level of third ring over front and left side of neck 3 cm below chin. 2. Incised wound size 5 cm x 3 cm x canel cut at level of fifth caverial vertebra over left side 2 cm below angle of mandible. 3. Incised wound size 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right side of neck 3 cm below right angle of mandible. 4. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x at level of fifth trachea ring cut 1 cm below injury no.3, right side and front of neck. 5. Incised wound size 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over lower part front right side of neck 1 cm below injury no.4. 6. Incised wound 1 cm x 15 cm x bone deep over left side of chin 2 cm lateral of tip of chin. 7. Incised wound size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x lower jaw cut 1 cm lateral to chin. 8. Lacerated wound size 5 cm x 2 cm over vaginal wall. 23. In the opinion of Doctor, injury nos. Incised wound 1 cm x 15 cm x bone deep over left side of chin 2 cm lateral of tip of chin. 7. Incised wound size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x lower jaw cut 1 cm lateral to chin. 8. Lacerated wound size 5 cm x 2 cm over vaginal wall. 23. In the opinion of Doctor, injury nos. 1 to 7 might have been caused by khurpi and injury no.8 might have been caused by rape or attempt thereof, therefore, medical evidence goes with statement of PW1. 24. From the perusal of evidence of PWs 1 to 4 complicity of accused in the present crime stood established. 25. Objection that PW1 is relative and father of deceased, we find ourselves unimpressed with the argument advanced by learned Counsel for appellant for the reason that relative of deceased or accused would not implicate innocent person in such a heinous offence that too in the murder of his daughter. 26. In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, 2013(15) SCC 298 , Court has held : “ 11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP, AIR 2011 SC 2292 ; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308 ).” 27. It is settled law that merely because witnesses are closely relative to deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person that too his own real son. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out that whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 28. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out that whether it is cogent and credible evidence. 28. In so far as discrepancies, variations and contradictions in the prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in consonance with the submissions raised by learned counsel's and find that the same do not go to the root of case. 29. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 , Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person. 30. In Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 473474 of 2019 decided on 12.3.2019 Supreme Court has observed that the Court will have to evaluate the evidence before it keeping in mind the rustic nature of the depositions of the villagers, who may not depose about exact geographical locations with mathematical precision. Discrepancies of this nature which do not go to the root of the matter do not obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. It need not be stated that it is by now well settled that minor variations should not be taken into consideration while assessing the reliability of witness testimony and the consistency of the prosecution version as a whole. 31. We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on 19.09.2018. 32. So far as the non-examination of Ram Pratap, Raju, Heera Lal, Ram Kumar and Ram Shanker are concerned, in view of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1872”) we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Similarly non-examination of eye witnesses Ram Nath shown in F.I.R., in view of Section 134 of Act, 1872 lacks any substance and do not help the appellant. 33. Similarly non-examination of eye witnesses Ram Nath shown in F.I.R., in view of Section 134 of Act, 1872 lacks any substance and do not help the appellant. 33. Law is wellsettled that as a general rule, Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he/she is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of Act, 1872, but if there are doubts about the testimony, Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the numbers, the quantity, but the quality that is material. Time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Test is whether evidence has a ring of truth, cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 34. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 14 SCC 150 , Court reiterated the view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused inspite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. 35. In Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381 a similar view has been taken placing reliance on earlier judgments including Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251 ; and Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 . 36. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2004) 12 SCC 229 , Court held that : "The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments inasmuch as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eyewitness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it." 37. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eyewitness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it." 37. In State of Haryana v. Inder Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537 , Court held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. 38. In view of facts and legal position discussed hereinabove, we find that Trial Court has rightly analysed evidence led by prosecution and found appellant guilty and convicted for having committed murder and rape of daughter of Informant/PW1, an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. Conviction by Trial Court is liable to be maintained and confirmed. No interference is warranted by this Court. 39. So far as sentencing of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balance of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in individual cases. 40. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation upon court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 ]. 41. Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of injuries and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment awarded to accused-appellant by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive and it appears fit and proper and no question arises to interfere in the matter on the point of punishment imposed upon him. 42. Consequently, Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 43. Lower Court record alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to District Court and Jail concerned for compliance and apprising the accused-appellant.