JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasia, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been instituted against the judgement and order dated 24.08.1994 passed by IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 698 of 1992, Bablu Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 1992 u/s 307 I.P.C. & Section 27 (3) of Arms Act, P.S.-Mavana, District-Meerut. There is no criminal appeal filed by the State or informant/injured against acquittal of appellant-accused u/s 307 I.P.C. Thus, the trial court’s order acquitting the accused u/s 307 I.P.C. has become final. 3. By the impugned order, the trial court has convicted the appellant, Bablu u/s 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him for 7 months 20 days imprisonment, the period which he had undergone in judicial custody during investigation and trial and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. 4. According to prosecution case as mentioned in the written report (Ext.Ka.1) presented by the informant, Bablu Giri at P.S.-Mavana, District-Meerut on 30.01.1992, he was going to the shop of Saket to purchase the bundle of bidis. In the way, Raghuvir Singh was beating Amar Singh. The informant stopped there to see the assault made by Raghuvir Singh. Thereupon, Raghuvir landed left fist blow on Bablu Giri. At 4 p.m. while Bablu Giri was returning after purchasing bundle of bidis from the shop, when he reached near the house of Shakir, Raghuvir scolding him, said that you have come here again. Meanwhile, informant’s father, Jaipal Giri reached there. Bablu complained to his father about beating given by Raghuvir. When informant’s father, Jaipal Giri asked Raghuvir the reason for beating his son, Raghuvir started abusing his father. Meanwhile, Raghuvir’s sons, Bablu and Shiv Kumar reached there with country-made pistol (katta) in their hands. With the intention of causing death, they fired on them. The pellets from the country-made pistol hit on the chest of the informant’s father causing injury to him. The pellets also hit Mamta, daughter of Satyapal, who was standing on the roof of her house, causing her injury. Meanwhile, Rajpal, Santa and other persons of the village reached there. They saw appellant firing on the informant and his father. The pellets from the country-made pistol hit on the chest of the informant’s father causing injury to him. The pellets also hit Mamta, daughter of Satyapal, who was standing on the roof of her house, causing her injury. Meanwhile, Rajpal, Santa and other persons of the village reached there. They saw appellant firing on the informant and his father. Informant, Bablu Giri, presented written report (Ext.Ka.1) in the police station concerned on the basis of which first information report u/s 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 (3) Arms Act was registered against Raghuvir, Shiv Kumar and Bablu. Its chik report is (Ext.Ka.3). The investigation was done by S.I. Fakire Lal Verma. He prepared the recovery memo (Ext.Ka.2) relating to taking the blood-stained cloth in his possession. 5. The injured Km. Mamta was carried to P.H.C., Mavana where during medical examination, it was found that she had received firearm injury on the right side of her chest. Since her condition was deteriorating fast, no detailed medical examination was done and she was referred to Medical College, Meerut for examination and expert treatment. She was admitted to Medical College, Meerut on 30.01.1992 where her operation was done. Her Bed Head Ticket is (Ext.Ka.5). Injured Jaipal Singh, was medically examined on 30.01.1992 at 8.00 hours at P.H.C. Mavana (Ext.Ka.10). One gunshot wound 1 cm round was found on the left side of outer aspect of chest, 8 cm away from nipple. Charring seen, bleeding present. X-ray was advised. 6. The Investigating Officer, S.I. Fakire Lal Verma, collected plain and blood-stained clothes from the place of occurrence of the injured Km. Mamta and Jaipal, wrapped these clothes in white cloth stitched and sealed it and prepared the memo regarding taking the same in possession (Ext.Ka.2). He then prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.8) and recorded the statements of witnesses and on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, submitted charge-sheet u/s 307 I.P.C. against Raghuvir Singh, appellant Bablu and Shiv Kumar. 7. On 04.01.1993, the court framed charge u/s 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. against accused, Raghuvir Singh, Bablu and Shiv Kumar. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 8. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined injured P.W.1 Km. 7. On 04.01.1993, the court framed charge u/s 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. against accused, Raghuvir Singh, Bablu and Shiv Kumar. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 8. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta, P.W.2 informant Bablu Giri, injured P.W.3 Jaipal Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal, P.W.5 Santa Giri as witnesses of fact while P.W.6 Head Constable Abdul Salam, P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W.8 Record Keeper, Dwarkeshpuri, Record Section, Medical College, Meerut, P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur, P.W.10 Investigating Officer, S.I. Fakire Lal Verma, P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi and P.W.12 Dr. N.K. Verma, C.M.O., Medical College, Meerut were examined as formal witnesses. 9. On 28.01.1994, the court recorded the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused. They denied the prosecution case. They said that witnesses are giving false evidence and the police prepared a false case against them. They also stated that false case was registered against them. The accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has convicted the appellant against the weight of evidence on record. It has also been submitted that all witnesses of fact except Km. Mamta have turned hostile. There is contradiction in her evidence. Therefore, conviction merely on the evidence of P.W.1 Km. Mamta is bad in the eye of law. 11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has supported the impugned judgement and order. He has submitted that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of duly proved legal evidence and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order and the appeal may be rejected. 12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 13. The witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution namely, P.W.1 Km. Mamta, P.W.2 informant Bablu Giri, P.W.3 Jaipal Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri have given evidence regarding the occurrence. P.W.6 Head Constable Abdul Salam has proved the chik F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.3) and copy of G.D. regarding institution of case (Ext.Ka.4). P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar has deposed in his evidence regarding taking injured Km. Mamta and Jaipal to the hospital and getting them medically examined there. P.W.8 Record Keeper Dwarkeshpuri, has deposed that injured Km. Mamta was admitted in the hospital on 30.01.1992 and discharged therefrom on 16.02.1992. P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar has deposed in his evidence regarding taking injured Km. Mamta and Jaipal to the hospital and getting them medically examined there. P.W.8 Record Keeper Dwarkeshpuri, has deposed that injured Km. Mamta was admitted in the hospital on 30.01.1992 and discharged therefrom on 16.02.1992. He has also stated that her Bed Head ticket was prepared by Dr. M.D. Tripathi. He has given formal evidence about her medical examination report (Ext.Ka.6). P.W.10 Investigating Officer/S.I. Fakire Lal Verma has proved site plan (Ext.Ka.8) and charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.9) submitted by him in the court. P.W.10 also proved the recovery memo relating to the taking possession of the blood-stained clothes of the injured Mamta and Jaipal (material Exts.9 to 13) and has stated that these material exhibits were sealed in a white cloth (Ext.Ka.11). P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi, who was posted as Surgeon on duty in Medical College, Meerut has deposed that after being referred, injured Km. Mamta was admitted on 30.01.1992 at 10.30 p.m. in emergency ward of Medical College, Meerut. Her medical examination was earlier done in P.H.C., Mavana. On 31.01.1992 in the morning, her operation was done. On the left side of the stomach (abdomen) and chest and on the left side of thigh and left leg and in the glutal region, injuries caused by firearm pellets were found. P.W.11 also stated that he had done the operation on the injured part of her stomach. 14. On the opening of the stomach, 500 ml blood was found in the peritoneum. There was through and through puncture in the left lobe of liver. There was puncture in the interior wall of the stomach. There was one small rent (tear) of 2 cm size found on the anterior border. There was 1 penetrating wound of 1 cm size on the left side of diaphragm. 250 ml blood was taken out from the chest by inserting a tube. 15. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the injuries may have been caused by gunshot wound. He has also given the opinion if the injured was not given medical aid in time and timely operation was not done, she could have died due to the injuries received by her. The injuries could have been caused on 30.01.1992. P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi has also proved the Bed Head ticket (Ext.C1) which was prepared by Dr. Sandeep Malik. He has also given the opinion if the injured was not given medical aid in time and timely operation was not done, she could have died due to the injuries received by her. The injuries could have been caused on 30.01.1992. P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi has also proved the Bed Head ticket (Ext.C1) which was prepared by Dr. Sandeep Malik. P.W.11 has also stated that on the injury nos. 3 and 5, blackening was found and charring was caused by gunshots. 16. P.W.12 Dr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, who was posted as Medical Officer at P.H.C., Mavana, and who has done the medical examination of Km. Mamta proved that he had done the medical examination of injuries of Km. Mamta on 30.01.1992 at 8.25 p.m. At the time of examination, following injury was found on her person : (i) Gunshot wound of 1 cm entry of one round probing not done, on the front of right side chest 15.5 cm above and at 11.30 o’clock position for umbilicus. Charring seen, bleeding present. Since condition of the patient was deteriorating, detailed examination could not be noted. The patient was referred to P.L. Sharma, Hospital for detailed examination of other injuries. Adv. Admission, further treatment and x-ray. Injury no. (i) was caused by firearm. Kept under observation. 17. Under Section 320 I.P.C., grievous hurt is defined which is as follows : Section 320 I.P.C. -The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous” : First- Emasculation. Secondly- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly- Privation of any member of joint. Fifthly-Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. A person cannot be said to have caused grievous hurt unless the hurt caused is one of the kinds of hurt specified under Section 320 I.P.C., 1860. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to give a finding on its own whether the hurt was simple or grievous. The Court is not concerned with the classification made by a doctor as to whether the hurt was simple or grievous. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to give a finding on its own whether the hurt was simple or grievous. The Court is not concerned with the classification made by a doctor as to whether the hurt was simple or grievous. A doctor is to describe the facts in respect of the nature of injury and the Court is to decide whether the nature of the injury described by the doctor comes within any of the clauses of Section 320 I.P.C., 1860. 18. In Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C., a fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth is included in the definition of grievous hurt. In Hori Lal and another Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1970 SC 1969 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for the application of Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C., it is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a brake by a cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to fracture within the meaning of Clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C. 19. In Clause 8 of Section 320 I.P.C., endangering life, severe bodily pain is included in the definition of grievous hurt. In State of Karnataka Vs. Parashram Kallappa Ghevade, 2007 CrLJ 479 (Kar), it has been held that the aforesaid clause speaks of two things : (1) any hurt which endangers life and (2) any hurt which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days (a) in severe bodily pain, or (b) unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Some hurts which are not like those hurts which are mentioned in the first seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious. Thus, a wound may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim, although it does not fall within any of the first seven clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 must be strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly. The line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt is a very thin line. In the one case the injuries must be such as are likely to cause death; in the other, the injuries must be such as to endanger life. 20. Injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta has deposed in her evidence on 26.03.1993 that the incident took place about two months earlier. There was quarrelling between Jaipal and Raghuvir. Hearing the noise of their quarrelling, she went on the terrace of her house from where she saw that accused, Shiv Kumar (since deceased) and appellant, Bablu were holding country-made pistol (katta) in their hands. Accused-appellant, Bablu and accused, Shiv Kumar fired with the country-made pistol in their hands. The bullet from the country-made pistol (katta) of the accused-appellant, Bablu hit her and that of accused, Shiv Kumar hit Jaipal. The witness stated that accused-appellant raised his hand and fired with the country-made pistol (katta) which hit her while she was standing on the terrace. Accused had intentionally fired by country-made pistol (katta) on her and Jaipal. Her medical examination was done. She remained admitted in the hospital for 18 days. 21. P.W.1 stated in her cross-examination that at the time of incident, informant, Bablu and his father, Jaipal, were standing in front of Shakir’s shop. The distance between Jaipal and his son, Bablu was 2 ft. The accused were standing about 3 ft. away from her. The accused, Bablu, fired while holding the country-made pistol (katta) in his raised hand. P.W.1 Mamta has further stated in her cross-examination that blood was coming out from her body which spread on her clothes. The Investigating Officer/Daroga had taken her blood-stained clothes in his possession. P.W.1 has further stated in her cross-examination that accused, Bablu is the resident of her village and she knew him from before. She has denied naming the accused on the direction of others. She stated that she has seen the accused from the terrace of her house. In this way, injured P.W.1 by her deposition has proved the date, time and place of occurrence. She has denied naming the accused on the direction of others. She stated that she has seen the accused from the terrace of her house. In this way, injured P.W.1 by her deposition has proved the date, time and place of occurrence. She has also deposed that with the intention to kill, accused Bablu was firing, holding country-made pistol (katta) in his raised hand. The bullet fired from the country-made pistol (katta) hit her causing injury from which blood oozed spreading on her clothes. P.W.1 has also proved that after the incident, her uncle and brother took her to the police station from where she was taken to Meerut Medical College where she was admitted and underwent treatment for 18 days. 22. P.W.2 Bablu Giri, who is the son of injured Jaipal Giri has deposed in his evidence dated 09.07.1993 that about 1½ years ago, the occurrence took place at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. He had gone to purchase bundle of bidi from the shop of Shakir. In the way, noise was being raised and quarrel was going on. The persons quarrelling asked him to leave that place. They hit him on his stomach with their fists. Meanwhile his father also came at the place where quarrel was going on. He asked persons quarrelling that why they assaulted his son. In the ongoing jostling, his father received gunshot wound. He lodged the report regarding the incident in the police station concerned. P.W.2 denied that he had not seen the occurrence himself. P.W.1 proved the written report (Ext.Ka.1). He further stated that he could not see who fired by country-made pistol (katta), causing injury to his father. P.W.2 has further deposed that the Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector had taken his father’s blood-stained clothes and prepared recovery memo thereof which was signed by P.W.2 which he proved as (Ext.Ka.2). Thus, P.W.2 Bablu Giri by his deposition proved the date, time and place of occurrence in which his father received firearm injury but he has not proved the involvement of appellant in the firing incident. 23. Similarly, P.W.3 injured Jaipal Giri has deposed in his evidence about the date, time and place of occurrence in which he received injury caused by country-made pistol (katta) and his medical examination by the doctor but he denied the involvement of appellant, Bablu in the firing incident. 23. Similarly, P.W.3 injured Jaipal Giri has deposed in his evidence about the date, time and place of occurrence in which he received injury caused by country-made pistol (katta) and his medical examination by the doctor but he denied the involvement of appellant, Bablu in the firing incident. Similarly, P.W.4 eye witness Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri have also proved by their deposition the date, time and place of occurrence but they have deposed that due to darkness, they could not see who fired and on whom. 24. P.W.6 Head Constable Abdul Salam, who was posted as Head Moharrir on 30.01.1992 at P.S.-Mavana proved the chik F.I.R. relating to Case Crime No. 46 of 1992 which was lodged at 19.00 o’clock against accused Bablu and others. He proved the chik report (Ext.Ka.3) and G.D. entry relating to the case crime number as (Ext.Ka.4). 25. P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar, who was posted on 30.01.1992 as Constable in P.S.-Mavana has proved by his evidence that he carried the injured Jaipal Giri to Mavana Hospital from where he was referred to Pyare Lal Hospital, Meerut where his x-ray was done. P.W.7 also proved by his evidence that on 30.01.1992 at night, he took injured Km. Mamta, daughter of Satyapal to Mavana Hospital from where the doctor referred her to Medical College, Meerut. 26. P.W.8 Dwarkeshpuri, Record Officer, Record Section, Medical College, Meerut has identified the signature of Dr. M.D. Tripathi on the Bed Head Ticket prepared by Dr. M.D. Tripathi. 27. P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur, who was posted as professor in the Department of Radiology, has proved the x-ray report of Km. Mamta as (Ext.Ka.7). He has stated in his evidence that there was no injury in the chest or abdomen of injured Mamta. He has deposed that two gunshots (pellets) were found in the behind of her right leg. There was fracture in right febula bone. Callus formation had not taken place. He has stated that the injury was caused within 10 days. 28. P.W.10 Investigating Officer, Fakire Lal Verma, proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.8). He has also proved the charge-sheet in the present criminal case filed against the accused as (Ext.Ka.9). P.W.10 proved the memo prepared by him relating to taking in possession bloodstained clothes of injured Jaipal and Mamta (material Ext.2). 28. P.W.10 Investigating Officer, Fakire Lal Verma, proved the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.Ka.8). He has also proved the charge-sheet in the present criminal case filed against the accused as (Ext.Ka.9). P.W.10 proved the memo prepared by him relating to taking in possession bloodstained clothes of injured Jaipal and Mamta (material Ext.2). He has proved the blood-stained clothes of the injured as (material Exts.9 to 13) and the plain clothes in which they were stitched and sealed as (material Exts.14). 29. P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi, who was posted on 30.01.1992 in Emergency Ward of Medical College, Meerut and had examined injured Km. Mamta, has stated in his evidence that Mamta had received firearm injury in the left side of stomach, chest, left thigh, left leg and left side of gluttal region. 30. P.W.12 Dr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, who was posted on 30.01.1992 in P.H.C., Mavana and has done medical examination of injured Km. Mamta at 8.25 p.m. and has proved the medical examination report as (Ext.Ka.9). P.W.12 has also deposed that he had on the same day medically examined, injured Jaipal Giri. He proved the medical examination report of injured Jaipal Giri. He has stated that the injuries received by Km. Mamta and Jaipal Giri could have been caused at 4 p.m. 31. The evidence of injured P.W.1 Mamta is cogent and reliable. Nothing emerges in her cross-examination which could shake the credibility of her evidence and prove that her evidence is false and unreliable. P.W.2 informant Bablu Giri, P.W.3 Jaipal Giri, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri have also by their deposition proved the date, time and place of occurrence and that in the occurrence, firearm injury was received by P.W.1 Mamta and P.W.3 Jaipal and to that extent they have corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 Mamta but have not proved the involvement of accused, Bablu in the crime. The facts mentioned in the oral testimony of P.W.1 Mamta, P.W.2 Bablu, P.W.3 Jaipal, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri is corroborated by the documentary evidence, written report (Ext.Ka.1), recovery memo relating to taking the blood-stained clothes in possession by the Investigating Officer, Fakire Lal Verma. The evidence of P.W.1 Mamta is also corroborated by the statement/evidence of P.W.6 Head Constable, Abdul Salam, P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W.8 Record Keeper, Dwarkeshpuri, Record Section, Meerut Medical College, P.W.9 Dr. The evidence of P.W.1 Mamta is also corroborated by the statement/evidence of P.W.6 Head Constable, Abdul Salam, P.W.7 Constable Vinod Kumar, P.W.8 Record Keeper, Dwarkeshpuri, Record Section, Meerut Medical College, P.W.9 Dr. S.A.S. Mathur, P.W.10 Investigating Officer, Fakire Lal Verma and P.W.11 Dr. M.D. Tripathi. 32. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that only one injured eye witness P.W.1 Km. Mamta has deposed regarding the involvement of appellant in the occurrence. The remaining eye witnesses, namely, P.W.2 Bablu, P.W.3 Jaipal, P.W.4 Rajpal and P.W.5 Santa Giri have denied accused’s involvement in the crime. Therefore, P.W.2 to P.W.5 have been declared hostile by the prosecution and they were cross-examined by the prosecution. Thus, accused-appellants cannot be held guilty merely on the basis of testimony of single eye-witness i.e. P.W.1 Km. Mamta. There is no force on the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant in this regard as under the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required for proving a fact. The statutory provisions relating to single eye witness is provided in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act : No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated the law relating to conviction on the basis of the testimony of single eye witness in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs Vs. Bhagwantbura (Dead) through LRs, AIR 2013 SC 1204 that in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Act. 34. From the aforesaid discussion of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant, charge u/s 325 I.P.C. against the appellant, Bablu, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Act. 34. From the aforesaid discussion of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant, charge u/s 325 I.P.C. against the appellant, Bablu, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has convicted the appellant, Bablu, only u/s 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to the period of 7 months and 20 days imprisonment which he has undergone during investigation and trial and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The injured P.W.1 Km. Mamta has received firearm or gunshot wound on the front of right side chest 15.5 cm above and at 11.30 o’clock position for umbilicus, she remained admitted in Medical College, Meerut for 18 days. Since no State appeal has been filed against acquitting the appellant u/s 307 I.P.C. and that 31 years have lapsed since the date of incident and learned A.G.A. for the State has not produced any subsequent criminal antecedents of the appellant, it is not justified to intervene with his conviction u/s 325 I.P.C. and convict him u/s 307 I.P.C. 35. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of injury received by injured Km. Mamta, the ends of justice will be met out if the fine imposed is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees) to be paid as compensation to the injured Km. Mamta within three months from the date of this judgement. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment of 4 months. The appeal is disposed of with above mentioned modification. 36. Let a copy of the judgement along with the record of the case be sent to the court concerned for execution of punishment as modified by the order passed in this criminal appeal.