VEER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P.

                         [2013) 17 S.C.R. 430


A                       VEER SINGH & ORS.
                                    v.
                           STATE OF U.P.
              (Criminal Appeal No(s). 256-257 of 2009)
                        DECEMBER 10, 2013
B
           [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                    C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 3071149, 3021149 and
C 452 - Prosecution under - Murder of 12 persons - Attempt
    of murder of another member of that family (PW4-injured eye-
    witness) - Conviction of appellants-accused and award of
    death sentence by trial court - High Court confirmed their
    conviction but reduced the death sentence to life
D · imprisonment - On appeal, held: The prosecution case is
    proved by the injured eye-witness, official witness and medical
    evidence - Motive for the offence also proved - The testimony
    of the injured eye-witness, is reliable being cogent credible
    and trustworthy - Hence conviction and sentence confirmed.
E
          Evidence - Adequacy of - Held: Legal system lays
    emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than
    on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses - As a general
    rule, Court may act on the testimony of sole witness provided
    such evidence is wholly reliable - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.
F   134.

       Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value of - Held:
  Testimony of hostile witness need not be discarded in toto -
  The portion of testimony, supporting the prosecution case, can
G be taken into consideration.
         Appellants-accused (accused Nos. 1 to 5) alongwith
    3 other accused (accused Nos. 6 to 8) were prosecuted
    for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 452
H                                 430
          VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                 431

IPC. The prosecution case was that the accused persons       A
killed 12 persons and also attempted to kill PW 4 who
managed to escape from the scene. Trial court acquitted
accused Nos. 6 to 8 while convicting the appellants"
accused and sentenced them to death for the offence of
murder alongwith other sentences for other offences.         s
High Court further acquitted all the accused of all the
charges. When the State approached this Court, the
matter was remanded to High Court. On re-appraisal of
the case, the High Court upheld the conviction of the
appellants-accused, but altered their death sentence to      c
 life imprisonment.

     In appeal to this Court, the appellants-accused inter
alia contended that the evidence of the eye-witnesss was
not reliable as there were many material improvements
in her statement; that the occurrence being a mid-night      D
occurrence, in the absence of effective source of light,
recognition of the assailants by the witnesses was
doubtful; and that no motive was attributable to the
appellants.
                                                             E
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1. From the evidence on record, it can be held
that appellants along with other accused armed with
weapons, had committed trespass into the dwelling
houses of victims during mid-night with a view to commit     F
murder of their family members and carried out the same.
The High Court has rightly sustained the conviction on
the appellants and the sentence awarded to them are
also proper. [Para 20) [446-D, E]
                                                             G
    2. From the testimony of PW 4, it becomes evident
that she has witnessed the occurrence and also
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the
occurrence in the morning itself, she was admitted in the
hospital ·for treatment and information· was sent to
    432       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R.

A Magistrate for recording her dying declaration. The
  injuries sustained by her were serious in nature. Her reply
  to the SOM pertained only to that part of the occurrence
  in which she was injured and not the entire occurrence.
  PW 4, in her testimony before the Court has clearly stated
B as to why she has given a limited answer to the
  Magistrate. Further it is not a dying declaration since she
  survived and it is only a statement under Section 164 of
  the Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section 157 of the
  Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under
c Section 155 of the Act for the purpose of contradiction.
  This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence. It
  must be borne in mind that she had witnessed the brutal
  murder of all her family. members by the appellants and
  other accused during the occurrence and when she was
  in a state of shock in the hospital, she had given answer
0
  to the question put by the Magistrate. After regaining her
  health, when she was examined by the Investigation
  Officer, she has stated the entire occurrence naming the
  assailants and the attack made by them with weapons.
E [Para 12] [441-H; 442-A-F]

       3. The.re is intrinsic evidence available on record
  which lends credence to her testimony. The names of
  assailants including the names of the present appellants
  are found mentioned in the complaint lodged by the
F complainant. It is also relevant to point out that no enmity
  is attributed to the complainant against the assailants and
  there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the
  appellants in the case. [Paras 13, 14] [442-G; 443-E-F]

      4. The testimony of the hostile witness need not be
G di&carded in toto and that portion of testimony in the
  chief-examination which supports the prosecution case
  can be taken for consideration. In the present case, in the
  examination-in-chief itself, PW 5 (the hostile witness) has
  admitted about his going to the place of occurrence
H
           VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                 433

 along with the complainant and 'J', on hearing the noise          A
 of firing and cries emanating from the house of the
 victims and the narration of the occurrence by the eye-
 witness PW 4, to them which led to lodging of the
 complaint. The above testimony oJ PW 5 lends. credence
"to the testimony of PW 4. [Para 15] [444-C, DJ                    B
                                                               •
    5. The Investigation Officer PW 18, after taking up the
investigation went to the occurrence place and seized
blood-stained materials and also went to the roof of the
house of the victims and took brick from the damagecj roof         C
and also ashes from the room, which have been marked
as Exh. Ka 40 and 41, respectively. This also lends
credence to the testimony of PW 4, that the assailants
damaged the roof and threw burning wood inside the
room during the occurrence. [Para 16] [444-E-F].
                                                                   D
     6. In the present case, the sole injured eye-witness
PW4, has lost all the members of her family in the attack
during the occurrence. There is no reason for her to
falsely implicate any of the accused in the case. On the
contrary she would only point out the correct assailants           E
who are responsible for killing her family members. Her
testimony is cogent, credible and trustworthy and has a
ring of truth and deserves acceptance. All the 12 victims
of ~he occurrence died of homicidal violence is
established by the oral testimony of the doctors who               F
conducted autopsies on their bodies and the certificates
issued by them to that effect. [Para 18] [445-D, E]

     7. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight
and quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity
or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of                 G
witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important
as there_ is no requirement under the Law of Evidence
that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined
to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and
not counted. It is quality and not quantity which                  H
    434        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A   determines the adequacy of evidence as has been
    provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a
    general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony
    of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. [Para
    17] [444-G-H; 445-A]
B
       Vadive/u Thevar and Anr. vs. State of Madras AIR 1957
  SC 614: 1957 SCR 981; Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State
  of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381: 2008 (1) SCR 781; Bipin
  Kumar Monda/ vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638:
  2010 (8) SCR 1036; Mahesh and Anr. vs. State of Madhya
C Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626: 2011 (11) SCR 377; Prithipal
  Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC
  10: 2012 (14) SCR 862; Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana
  JT 2013 (1) SC 222: 2012 (11) SCR 1010; Gu/am Sarbar
  vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) 2013 (12) SCALE 504 -
D relied on.

          8. There was also motive for the occurrence. It is the
    testimony of the PW4 that her husband (victim/deceased
    'S') lent a sum of Rs.8000/- to one of the accused, 8 years
E prior to the occurrence and he was avoiding to pay back
    which created bitterness. Besides the above, it was also
    indicated in her testimony that the accused suspected
    that family members of PW 4 had tipped the police about
    his activities which led to his arrest twice by the Police.
F It is her further testimony that another victim /deceased
    'M' has also lent _some money to that accused and this
    testimony also finds support from the evidence of PW 9.
    Both the above witnesses namely PW4 and PW9 have
    ~estified that sister of that accused had developed illicit
G . intimacy with son of the victim 'M' and had once outraged
    her modesty which led to convening of a Panchayat and
    decision thereof. Enraged by this, the accused wanted to
    take revenge and that has resulted in the occurrence.
    [Para 19) [445-F-H; 446-A-C]

H
           VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.                      435


                     Case Law Reference:                          A

   1957 SCR 981                 relied on         Para 17
                                                                      -'---.·

   2008 (1) SCR 781             relied on         Para 17
   2010 (8) SCR 1036            relied on         Para 17         B
   2011 (11) SCR 377            relied on         Para 17
   2012 (14) SCR 862            relied on         Para 17
   2012 (11) SCR 1010           relied on         Para 17
                                                                  c
   2013 (12) SCALE 504           relied on        Para 17

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 256-257 of 2009.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2007 of the           D
High Court' of Judicature Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 749
and 761 of 1996.

    R. S. Sodhi, Manisha Bhandari, Onkar Shrivastava, S. K.
Verma for the Appellants.
                                                                  E
    Ratnakar Dash, Archana Singh, Abhisth Kumar for the
Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  F
     C. NAGAPPAN, J. : 1. These two appeals are preferred
against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal
Appeal No.761 of 1996 dated 1.10.2007.

    2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 749of1996 are        G
accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.761 of 1996 is the accused No.5, in the Sessions Case
No.72 of 1985, on the file of Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzafarnagar, and they were tried along with three other
accused for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 307      H
                                                       •
    436       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A read with Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 452
  of Indian Penal Code. Sessions Court found accused Nos. 6
  to 8 not guilty of the charges and acquitted them and at the
  same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charge under
  Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them
B to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court; convicted
  them for the offences under Section 307 read with Section 149
  of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
  for a period of 5 years; convicted them for the offence under
  Section 452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
c imprisonment for a period of 4 years, and had also convicted
  Veer Singh, A-1, Takai Singh A-2 and Balkar Singh A-5, for the
  offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
  RI for a period of 2 years and had convicted Amrik Singh, A-3
  and Kamir Singh, A-4, for the offence under Section 147 IPC
D and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
  period of one year.

        3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused No.1
  to 5 preferred appeals being Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996
  and Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 1996 and a Reference
E regarding death penalty was also made to the High Court.
  Besides the State also preferred an appeal being Appeal
  No.1341 of 1996, challenging the acquittal of accused Nos:6
  to 8. The Appeals and Reference were heard together and the
  High Court by its common judgment dated 4.12.1997 allowed
F the Criminal Appeals filed by accused Nos: 1 to 5 and rejected
  the Reference and acquitted them of all the charges. It also
  dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the State.

       4. Challenging the said judgment the State of U.P.
G preferred Civil Appeal Nos.727 - 729 of 1998 and this Court
  allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the High Court
  for fresh hearing. Thereafter, the High Court by common
  judgment dated 1.10.2007 commuted death sentence recorded
  against the accused Nos.1 to 5 to one of life imprisonment and
   upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions
H
 VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.t>. [I.-. 1~1-1l.:>1-1r-i-'AN, J.j 437


Court against them for all the charges by dismissing the            A
appeals in Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal
Appeal No.761 of 1996. It also dismissed the State appeal
preferred challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 6 to 8.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to
5 have preferred the present appeals.                               B

      5. The prosecution case as it discerned from the records
is briefly, as follows :

      Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh were residents of village
Dongpura, whereas Gurdip Singh was resident of adjacent             C
village Varnau. On 13/14.7.1984, at about midnight Gurdip
Singh heard firing and cries from the houses of Shisha Singh
and Mohar Singh and armed with his licensed gun he along with
Jassa Singh and Hazoor Singh moved towards the house of
Shisha ·Singh. In the moonlight and the light of the torch he saw   D
Kartar Singh and his son Mahender Singh standing on the roof
top of the house of Sh is ha Singh holding gun and country made
pistol and Kartar Singh was shouting aloud to his sons
Mahendra Singh, Lakkha Singh, Ginder Singh and Sinder
Singh to eliminate the whole family of Shisha Singh and Mohar       E
Singh and that none should escape away. They fired several
gun shots and Gurdip Singh withdrew himself back and at that
time Harbans Kaur wife of Shisha Singh escaped from the
house with injuries and came and told him that Kartar Singh
and his four sons accompanied by all the four sons of               F
Sampuran Singh and Balkar Singh had .killed all the family
members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and sought help
from him. Harbans Kaur was taken to a safer place and
thereafter Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant Singh went to the
Jhinjhana Police Station and gave an oral complaint which was       G
reduced.to writing by PW14 Head-Mouri and First Information
Report came to be registered at about 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984.
The police party rushed to the place of occurrence and S.J.
Mohd. Akhtar, S.O., Jhinjhana Police Station, took up the
investigation and sent the injured to the hospital. He seized
                                                                    H
    438          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.CR.


A   material objects from the place of occurrence and conducted
    ;'lquest on the dead bodies and prepared inquest reports and
    sent the bodies for post-mortem examination.

         6. PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma examined Harbans Kaur at 6.30
    a.m. on 14.7.1984 in the Civil Hospital Shamli and found
8
    following injuries:

          "(i) Lacerated wound measuring 11 ems x 1.5 ems x bone
          deep slanting on the left side of head 6.5 ems above from
          the left ear. Wound had been bleeding.
c
          (ii) Lacerated wound measuring 1.2 ems x 0.5 cm x bone
          deep on the left ear, bleeding.

          (iii) Bluish mark in red colour in the area of 7 ems x 1 ems
          on the left cheek in between the injury No.2 and 4
D
                               •
          (iv) Lacerated would measuring 3 ems x 0.7 ems x across
          through the right cheek. Lacerated wound measuring 3
          ems x 0.3 ems x bone deep on the portion of jaw opposite
          to it.
E
          (v) Red bluish marks in the area of 28 ems x 1.5 ems on
          the third upper portion of back on both side of the
          backbone.

          (vi) Many lacerated wounds in the area of 37 ems x 28 ems
F         of chest and abdomen on the frontal portion, out of these
          the large wound was measured as 3 ems x 0.7 cm x depth
          was not measured and the smallest wound was measuring
          0.2 ems x o.2 cm x muscle deep. Some article like hard
          pellet felt in the injury. Blackening was present nearby the
G         injury.

          (vii) Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle
          deep, nearby to it, skin has peeled towards the inner side
          of the left thigh.
H
   VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]                  439


       (viii) Abrasion in the area of 5 ems x 1.5 cm on the frontal       A
       portion and left side of the left knee."

       The Doctor opined that injury No.1 could have been
 . caused by sharp-edged weapon while injury no.6 could have
   been caused by a fire arm.                                             B
        7. Dr. N.K. Taneja (PW 1), Dr. R.K. Vats (PW 2), Dr. B.K.
  Mishra (PW 3), Dr. Suresh Chand (PW 10), Dr. R.S. Kasana
  (PW 11) and Dr. D.C. Mohar(PW 12) conducted autopsy on
  thebodies of 12 victims. They opined that the death occurred
  to all the victims due to shock of hemorrhage as a result of ante-      c
  mortem injuries. Exh. 1 to 6 and 9 to 14 are the post-mortem
  certificates issued by the Doctors.

        8. Dl!ring the investigation the Investigating Officer arrested
   the accused and on the information furnished by them made              D
   recoverie·s of the weapons and other material objects under
   Mahazar (Fard). After completing investigation he filed charge-
   sheet against all the accused totaling 13. One of the accused
   died and the Sessions Court framed charges against the
   accused persons and during the trial the prosecution examined
                                                                          E
 . 18 witnesses and marked 93 Exhibits. During trial four accused
' absconded. The Sessions Court examined accused Nos.1 to
   8 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them denied the testimony
   of the prosecution witnesses and stated that they have been
   falsely implicated due to enmity. The Sessions Court convicted
   adcused Nos. 1 to 5 for the charges as indicated above and             F
   acquitted accused Nos. 6 to 8. On appeal the High Court
   acquitted all the accused and on further appeal by the State this
   Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for
   reconsideration. Thereafter the High Court has passed the
   impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence            G
   of the High Court accused Nos.1 to 5 have preferred these
   appeals.

     9. Mr. RS.Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellants
  submitted that Harbans Kaur is the sole eye-witness to the              H
    440         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A   occurrence and in heir earlier statement before the Magistrate
    within a few hours of the occurrence, she h'as told that Su render
    Singh has fired gun shots at her and Surender, Mahender,
    Jinder who are sons of Kartar Singh were involved and
    thereafter in her statement given before the 1.0. in addition to
s   the above said accused per.sons she named the appellants/
    accused Nos.1 to 5 amongst ~he assailants and, therefore, her
    testimony is not reliable, and lot of material improvements were
    introduced and there is no motive attributable to the present
    appellants and it's a midnight occurrence and in the absence
c   of effective source of light it is doubtful as to whether the
    witness could have recognized the assailants and the appellants
    have been falsely implicated in the case.

         10. Per contra Mr. Ratnakar Das, Senior Advocate
    appearing for the respondent contended that Harbans Kaur was
D   seriously injured in the occurrence and only one question was
    asked by the Magistrate as to who caused injury to her and in
    her reply she named Surender Singh and the other sons of
    Kartar Singh and it related to a part of occurrence so far as
    the injured is concerned and did not in any way relate to rest
E   of the occurrence and after gaining full consciousness in her
    statement given before the Investigation Officer she has
    narrated the entire occurrence and ihe names of all the
    accused, and in the FIR which came into being immediately
    after the occurrence based on the complaint given by Sardar
F   Gurdip Singh, the names of all the accused persons are found
    mentioned and there was also motive for the occurrence.

         11. Harbans Kaur is the wife of Shisha Singh and the
    dwelling house of Mohar Singh was adjacent to her house. PW
    4 Harbans Kaur in her testimony has stated that on the fateful
G   night she along with her sons Joginder Singh and Jassa Singh
    and her daughter Rane, Joginder's wife Bhajan Kaur and her
    three children Bagga Singh, Phulvender and Gurmit Singh were
    sleepltlg in her house and her husband was sleeping in the
    tubewell and a lantern was burning in the house and on hearing
H
 VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 441


the barking of dogs they woke-up and saw group of people at         A
the gate including Kartar Singh and his four sons namely
Mahendra Singh, Lakkha Singh, Ginder Singh and Sindar
Singh and they were carrying gun, country made pistol, axe and
spade. She also noticed among them the four sons of
Sampuran Singh namely appellants Veer Singh, Tahal Singh,           B
Amreek Singh and Kamir Singh along with Balkar Singh armed
with weapons and lathi in the assembly, and out of fear she and
her family members went into a room and bolted the door from
inside. Kartar Singh and Mahender Singh climbed up the roof
and started demolishing the roof and threw burning wood from        c
the roof. Kartar Singh was shouting aloud to his sons to finish
off all the members of family of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh
and not to allow anybody to escape alive. It is her further
testimony that when she and the other family members tried to
escape, accused Kartar Singh, Mahender Singh, Balkar Singh          0
and Amreek Singh let loose killing spree and initially killed her
daughter Rano, her daughter-in-law Bhajan Kaur, her sons
 Kulvendra and Gurpreet Singh and they fired gun-shots on her
which struck on her chest and accused Sinder attacked her with
an axe on her hand and mouth and her sons Jassa Singh and
                                                                    E
 Joginder Singh were killed outside their house when they tried
to run away. She heard cries emanating from the house of
 Mohar Singh and five persons of their family were also killed
 and she ran to the field of paddy hiding herself where she met
 Gurdip Singh, Hazoor Singh and Jaswant Singh and narrated
 the occurrence to them and sought their help to lodge the          F
 complaint and Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant Singh
 proceeded to the Police Station. She has further testified that
 she asked Hazoor Singh to go to the tubewell and inform her
 husband about the occurrence. Hazoor Singh came back and
 told her that Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh were also hacked        G
 to death.

     12. From the above testimony it becomes evident that PW
4 Harbans Kaur has witnessed the occurrence and also
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the occurrence       H
    442         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A in the morning itself Harbans Kaur was admitted in the hospital
  for treatment and information was sent to Magistrate for
  recording her dying declaration. In the hospital she was
  examined by PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma and he noticed 8 injuries
  on her body and he has expressed opinion that the lacerated
B wounds could have been caused by sharp-edged weapons
  and injury No.6 could have been caused by firearm. The injuries
  sustained by her were serious in nature. The SOM Shamli
  reached the hospital at 12.45 p.m. and recorded her statement
  in question-answer form and 011ly one question was asked as
c to how she sustained the injuries and she told that she was shot
  by Surender Singh in the presence of other sons of Kartar
  Singh. In other words the reply pertained only to that part of the
  occurrence in which she was injured and not the entire
  occurrence. In fact PW 4 Harbans Kaur in her testimony before
  the Court has clearly stated as to why she has given a limited
0
  answer to the Magistrate. Further it is not a dying declaration
  since she survived and it is only a statement.under Section 164
  of the Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section 157 of the
  Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under
  Section 155 of ttie Act for the purpose of contradiction. This
E statement did not relate to the entire occurrence. It must be
  borne in mind that she had witnessed the brutal murder of all
  her family members by !tie appellants and other accused during
  the occurrence and when she was in a state of shock in the
  hospital she had given answer to the question put by the
F Magistrate. After rE;!gaining her health when she was examined
  by the Investigation Officer, she has stated the entire occurrence
  naming the assailants and the attack made by them with
  weapons.

G      13. There is intrinsic evidence available on record which
  lends credence to her testimony. The occurrence took place in
  the midnight and the complaint was lodged in Jhinjhana Police
  Station at 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984 without any loss of time. The
  complainant Gurdip Singh was also murdered before the trial.
H In the complaint Gurdip Singh has stated that during midnight
 VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]              443


on the occurrence day he heard loud noise and screaming from        A
the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh. He took up his
licensed gun and moved towards the house of Shisha Singh
with Jassa Singh and Hajoor Singh and saw in the moon lit night
and also in the light shed by the torch, Kartar Singh and his son
Mahender Singh standing on the roof of Shisha Singh's house         B
and Kartar Singh loudly directed his sons to wipe off all the
family members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and when
he and his fellows challenged, all of a sudden the assailants
opened fire on them and he stepped back and it was at that
time injured Harbans Kaur who escaped from the occurrence           c
place met him and told him that Kartar Singh and his sons along
with other accused have killed all the members of her family
and also the family of Mohar Singh, and pleaded for help and
to inform the police. After providing her safety he went to the
Police Station and gave oral complaint which was reduced to
                                                                    0
writing and he appended his signature on it.

     14. The Head-Mouri of the Police Station Shri lnder Pal
Sharma, PW14 has recorded the oral complaint of Gurdip
Singh and registered the FIR, Exh.Ka-18. The extract of G.D.
is Exh.Ka-19. The names of assailants including the names of E
the present appellants are found mentioned in the complaint·
lodged by Gurdip Singh. It is also relevant to point out that no
enmity is attributed to Gurdip Singh against the assailants and
there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellants in
the case.                                                         F

     15. Hazoor Singh has been examined as PW 5 and in his
examination-in-chief he has stated that on the occurrence night
he heard the noise of firing coupled with screaming cries from
the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and he went to            G
the house of Jassa Singh and both of them went to .the house
of Gurdip Singh who accompanied them by taking gun and
torch and when they went near the house of Shisha Singh they
saw several men and he could not identify any of them and
Harbans Kaur met them there·and told them that .Kartar Singh
                                                                    H
    444         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 $.C.R.

A and other assailants have attacked them. At this point of time
  he was declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-
  examination he stated that Gurdip Singh had lodged the
  complaint about the occurrence in the Police Station and when
  Harbans Kaur narrated the occurrellCe, he was also present at
B the place and on the request of Harbans Kaur he went to the
  tubewell and found Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh lying dead
  and he informed Harbans Kaur about the same and she
  became unconscious. lt is settled law that the testimony of the
  hostile witness need not be discarded in toto and that portion
c of testimony in the chief-examination which supports the
  prosecution case can be taken for conslderation. In the present
  case, in the examination-in-chief itself PW 5 Hazoor Singh has
  admitted about his going to the place of occurrence along with
  Gurdip Singh and Jaswant Singh qn hearing the noise of firing
  and cries emanating from the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar
0
  Singh and the narration of the occurrence by Harbans Kaur to
  them which led to lodging. of \he complaint. The above testimony
  of PW 5 lencjs credence to the testimony of PW 4.

        16. The Investigation Officer PW 18 S.J. Mohd. Akhtar,
E after taking up the investigation went to the occurrence place
 . and seized blood-stained materials and -also went to the roof
   of the house of Shisha Singh and took brick from the damaged
   roof and also ashes from the room, which have been marked
   as Exh·. Ka 40 and 41, respectively. This also lends credence
F to the testimony of PW 4 Harbans Kaur that the assailants
   damaged the roof and threw burning wood inside the room
   during the occurrence.

        17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and
G quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality
  of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their
  evidence which is important as there is no requirement under
  the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses
  is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be
  weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which
H
 VEER SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.) 445


determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided A
under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the
Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witnes~
provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. ·
vs. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 61~; Kunju@ Balachandran
vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar B
Monda/ vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh
and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626;
Prithipal Singh and ors. vs. State of Punjab and anr. (2012)
1 SCC 10; Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana J.T 2013 (1) SC
222 and Gu/am Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) -            c
2013 (12) SCALE 504).

      18. In the present case we are left with the sole testimony
of injured eye-witness PW4 Harbans Kaur. She has lost all the
members of her family in the attack during the occurrence.
There is no reason for her to falsely implicate any of the           D
accused in the case. On the contrary she would only point out
the correct assailants who are responsible for killing her family
members. We are of the considered view that the testimony of
PW4 Harbans Kaur is cogent, credible and trustworthy and has
a ring of truth and .deserves acceptance. All the 12 victims of      E
the occurrence died of homicidal violence is established by the
oral testimony @f the doctors who conducted autopsies on their
bodies and the certificates issued by them to that effect.
           //
      19. There was also motive for the occurrence. It is the        F
testimony of the PW4 Harbans Kaur that her husband lent a
sum of Rs.8000/- to Mahender Singh son of Kartar Singh 8
years prior to the occurrence and he was avoiding to pay back
which created bitterness. Besides the above, it is also indicated
in her testimony that Mahender Singh suspected that family           G
members of Harbans Kaur had tipped the police about the
activities of Mahender Singh which led to his arrest twice by
the Jhinjhana and Kairana Police. It is her further testimony that
Mohar Singh has also lent some money to Mahender Singh and
this testimony also finds support from the evidence of PW 9
                                                                     H
    446           SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A   Mukhtiyar Singh son of Mohar Singh to the effect that Lakka
    Singh had taken Rs.1600/- from Mohar Singh about 5 years
    prior to occurrence which he had declined to pay despite
    repeated demands. Both the above witnesses namely PW4
    Harbans Kaur and PW9 Mukhtiyar Singh have testified that
s   Mahendro sister of Mahender Singh had developed illicit
    intimacy with Avtar Singh @ Pappu son of Mohar Singh and
    had once outraged her modesty which led to convening of a
    Panchayat and decision thereof. Enraged by this Mahender
    Singh wanted to take revenge and that has resulted in the
c   occurrence. In this context it is relevant to point out that the
    appellants in their answers to the questions put to them during
    proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C.in the trial have alleged
    that they have been falsely implicated in the case on account
    of enmity.

D       20. From the evidence on record we are inclined to hold
  that appellants along with other accused armed with weapons
  had committed trespass into the dwelling houses of Shisha
  Singh and Mohar Singh during mid-night with a view to commit
  murder of the family members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh
E and carried out the same. The High Court has rightly sustained
  th·e conviction on the appellants and the sentence awarded to
  them are also proper.

      21. We find no merit in the appeals and the same are
F dismissed.
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                           Appeals dismissed.