THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1298 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole. 2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 5.10.2000 at about 10.30 PM, while P.W.1 was sitting on a wall near railway station, Ongole, the accused came to him from railway hospital and threatened to kill, and A.1 stabbed on his left elbow causing bleeding injury. When P.W.1 was running away out of fear, A.2 chased him, caught hold of him and caused cut injury on his back side with knife. However, he escaped from them and thereafter, lodged complaint. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws. 2 to 6. P.W.7 examined the injured and issued Ex.P7-wound certificate. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. 3. After committal, the case was numbered as Sessions Case No.105 of 2001 and made over to the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. The trial Court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. against A.1 and A.2 When the charge was read over and explained to them in telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, accepting the evidence of P.W.1, found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 6. On appeal, the appellate court, partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against A.1, while acquitting A.2. Challenging the same, the present revision case is preferred by petitioner/A.1. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the courts below is correct, legal and proper ? 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A.1 contended that the solitary evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted as a sole basis for convicting the petitioner in view of the fact that it is full of contradictions; that the two other injuries have not been explained; that the appellate court having given a benefit of doubt to A.2, should have extended the same benefit to petitioner/A.1 also; that, believing a part of evidence of P.W.1 is not permissible, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/A.1. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that, the evidence of P.W.1, who is an injured witness, is clear that he sustained injuries in the hands of petitioner/A.1; that the ocular testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by the medical evidence; that as no specific overt-acts are attributed against A.2 in the First Information Report, the appellate court did not place reliance on a part of the testimony of P.W.1 and extended benefit of doubt to A.2; that a part of the evidence of a witness can be accepted if it is found to be true and trustworthy; that, the courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner/A.1 and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, she prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that, revisional powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be illegal or improper or perverse, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. 11. P.Ws. 2 to 6 are said to be eye witnesses present at the time of the incident. But, they have given a complete go-by to their earlier version and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, their evidence is not relevant to show that the revision petitioner/A.1 is the assailant of P.W.1. The entire case of prosecution rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1, who is the injured witness, coupled with medical evidence of P.W.7. The law is well settled that when a case rests upon the evidence of a solitary witness, it must be free from all doubts, convincing, trustworthy and reliable. When once the evidence of a solitary witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, the law does not require any corroboration for his evidence, to base a conviction. 12. P.W.7 is the Doctor, who examined P.W.1 on the same day of the incident at about 11.55 PM and noticed an injury of 6x2x3 cms lateral side elbow with regular edges exposing muscles and tenderness, and an injury of 5x1x1 cm above right supra scapular area horizontal with regular edges; and an injury of 4x1x1 cm over left supra scapular area. Age of the injuries, according to the Doctor, is between 1 ½ to 2 hours. He issued Ex.P7- wound certificate. 13. From the evidence of P.W.7 and the recitals in Ex.P7, it is clear that P.W.1 sustained three injuries. It is not the case of the revision petitioner/A.1 that P.W.1 sustained those injuries at some other place at some other time in the hands of some other persons, or that P.W.1 self-inflicted those injuries and foisted a false case against the accused. 14. No doubt, there were disputes between P.W.1 and A.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that while he was sitting in railway station, Ongole, A.1 came there and caused injury on the lateral side of elbow with a knife. That injury is corresponding to the injury no.1 in Ex.P7- wound certificate. Therefore, his evidence with regard to sustaining of injury on the lateral side of elbow is corroborated and established, by the medical evidence. Now, the question is whether it is caused by revision petitioner/A.1 or not. 15. No doubt, P.Ws. 2 to 6, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. But, that does not mean that the evidence of P.W.1 also has to be disbelieved on that ground. If the evidence of a solitary witness is found to be true, trustworthy and unimpeachable, there is no legal bar to base a conviction on the solitary evidence. No doubt, a part of the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to causing of the injury by A.2, has been disbelieved by the appellate court. That does not mean that the other part of his testimony is also to be disbelieved, because the maxim falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus (false in one thing and false in everything) has no application to Criminal Law in India. Such part of the testimony of a witness which inspires confidence, can be accepted and can be placed reliance. 16. The appellate court has not placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to causing of the injuries by A.2 for the reason that no specific overt-act is attributed against A.2 in the First Information Report. For that reason, the appellate court has exercised discretion in separating chaff from grain. Such a course is permissible under law. In so far as the present petitioner/A.1 is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 is cogent that A.1 caused stab injury on the lateral side of elbow with a knife to him and it is completely in corroboration with the recitals in Ex.P1. Further, the ocular testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated with the medical evidence. Therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 in so far as A.1 causing stab injury with knife on P.W.1 and the said finding need not be interfered with. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C, 17. With regard to sentence, the incident is alleged to have taken place about a decade back. There were some disputes between revision petitioner/A.1 and P.W.1. The revision petitioner/A.1 seems to be the first offender. He was aged about 20 years as on the date of the incident. At this stage, it is not desirable to send him to jail by confirming the substantial sentence imposed by the appellate court. 18. In the result, conviction recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner/A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. is confirmed, and the revision petitioner/A.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Out of the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- , a sum of Rs.4,000/- shall be paid to the victim (P.W.1). 19. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1298 of 2004 24.06.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1298 of 2004 Date: 24.06.2010 Between: T.Samson, s/o.Philip …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent