JUDGMENT : SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2005 passed by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surajpur, District Sarguja, CG in Sessions Trial No. 405/2004 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for five years. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant/Bechani Bai (PW-7) resides with her husband Alam Sai (deceased) at Village Sarswatipur. Her husband is an employee of SECL Kumda Collary. In the week of incident her husband was in the night shift and on the date of incident i.e. 04.07.2004 at about 11 hours Sukhram (present appellant) and Goverdhan (PW-6) both brothers were quarreling upon which Bechani Bai (PW-7) and Alam Sai (deceased) pacified them not to quarrel. Upon which the appellant became angry and assaulted the Alam Sai (deceased) on his head and he fell down in the courtyard became unconscious. The incident was witnessed by Devdhari (PW-2), Bilaso (PW-5), Kailaso Bai (PW- 3) and Dhanmet (PW-4). The incident was informed to Maansai (PW-13) and Jaikaran (PW-12) by the Bechani Bai (PW-7). The Alam Sai (deceased) was admitted in Vishrampur hospital and on the very same day, the FIR (Ex.D-1) was lodged at Police Station Vishrampur at 14:45 hours upon which offence under Section 307 IPC was registered and on the same day at 4:30 PM Alam Sai died in the hospital. 3. The investigation was set on motion, dead-body panchnama was prepared and postmortem was also conducted, spot map was prepared, blood stain, simple soil, blood stain sando baniyaan of deceased was seized from Bechani Bai in presence of witnesses. On the basis of memorandum of the appellant, bamboo stick was seized, the seized article was sent for chemical examination to FSL, report was received, the appellant was arrested, after completion of the investigation charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC under Crime No. 93/2004 was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, CG, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surajpur and was made over to the trial Court for trial. Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited as many as 19 documents. Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited as many as 19 documents. Statement of the accused under Section 131 of CrPC was recorded in which he denied the charge and claimed false implication. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned trial Court with regard to conviction is based upon solitary statement of Bechani Bai (PW-7) and she being interested witness cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction. He submits that all the other independent witnesses who alleged to have seen the evidence have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are majority of contradictions and omissions in the statement of Bechani Bai (PW-7) therefore, her statement cannot be termed to be of sterling quality. The conviction of the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He further submits that if the conviction of the appellant is not going to be set aside, at least the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone which comes to about 249 days. He submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the accused/appellant, that he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, that his further detention may be detrimental not only to him but also to the society as being in the midst of hardened criminals he may also develop a criminal proclivity posing an alarm to the society and therefore, by giving him the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 (for short Act) he may be set free forthwith. To buttress his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1975 , in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Muddappa, (1999) 5 SCC 732 and the decision of Madras High Court in case of Radhakrishnan Vs. Inspector of Police in Cr. Appeal No. 592 of 2003 dated 23.02.2010. 7. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1975 , in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Muddappa, (1999) 5 SCC 732 and the decision of Madras High Court in case of Radhakrishnan Vs. Inspector of Police in Cr. Appeal No. 592 of 2003 dated 23.02.2010. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent however opposes the submission made by counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as described above. Likewise, looking to the allegation made against the accused/appellant he is also not entitled to get the benefit of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 (for short Act) or reduction in sentence. 8. Heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. From the evidence on record in particular that of the doctor (PW-1), there is no hesitation for this Court to approve the finding of the trial Court as regards the death being homicidal in nature. This finding of the trial Court is accordingly maintained. 10. The next point to be determined by this Court is as to who is the author of the crime in question? 11. The prosecution star witness Bechani Bai (PW-7) who happens to be the wife of the deceased. Though other eye witnesses were also presented by the prosecution but it appear that they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that Bechani Bai being the wife is interested witness cannot be relied upon to sustain the prosecution. This contention is liable to be rejected. Bechani Bai (PW-7) who is the wife of the deceased was present on the seen of occurrence and she has lodged the immediate report (Ex.D-1) mentioning the name of the accused and describing the manner the incident has occurred. Simply, because she is wife cannot be termed to be an interested witness and there is difference between relative witness and interested witness. It is hard to digest that a person who has lost her husband would allow a real culprit to go by and falsely implicate an innocent person. Simply, because she is wife cannot be termed to be an interested witness and there is difference between relative witness and interested witness. It is hard to digest that a person who has lost her husband would allow a real culprit to go by and falsely implicate an innocent person. In the same breath this Court feels desirable to quote paragraphs 28 & 29 the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 97 which reads as under:- “28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 29. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0031 : 1953 INSC 46 where this Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. This position has been reiterated by this Court in: i. Md. Rojali Ali and Ors. v. The State of Assam Ministry of Home Affairs through Secretary, MANU/SC/0234/2019 : 2019 INSC 22 : (2019) 19 SCC 567 ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N. MANU/SC/0298/2018 : 2018 INSC 271 : (2018) 5 SCC 549 iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, MANU/SC/1801/2009 : 2009 INSC 1223 : (2010) 1 SCC 199 ” In view of above, this contention is rejected. 12. The second contention of Mr. Ganapathi v. State of T.N. MANU/SC/0298/2018 : 2018 INSC 271 : (2018) 5 SCC 549 iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, MANU/SC/1801/2009 : 2009 INSC 1223 : (2010) 1 SCC 199 ” In view of above, this contention is rejected. 12. The second contention of Mr. Patel is that there is majority of contradiction and omission in the statement of Bechani Bai (PW-7) hence cannot be relied upon. Of course there are some contradiction and omission in the statement of the PW-7. However, on material particular she remained firm, described happening of the incident and she has also stated only one assault by bamboo stick was made by the appellant on the head of the deceased. Every contradiction and omission which does not go to root of the case may not be fatal of the prosecution. From the testimony of the eye witnesses if the case appears to have been proved, this Court can rely upon such statement. In this context it is essential to notice paragraph 10 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Vs. M.K. Anthony, ( 1985) 1 SCC 505 as under:- “10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper- technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper- technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible.” 13. This judgment was followed with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Represented by inspector of Police Vs. Saravanan and another, (2008) 17 SCC 587 . Therefore, the second contention is rejected. 14. Now, the third contention which has been raised by Mr. Patel is that the other alleged eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution hence the conviction of the appellant on solitary statement of eye witness (PW-7) cannot be sustained. In the opinion of this Court, this is also liable to be rejected on the ground that it is not the quantity of the evidence, rather of the evidence which matters to sustain conviction. If one witness is speaking the truth and throwing light on the happening of the incident, it is sufficient enough to hold the conviction. In the opinion of this Court, this is also liable to be rejected on the ground that it is not the quantity of the evidence, rather of the evidence which matters to sustain conviction. If one witness is speaking the truth and throwing light on the happening of the incident, it is sufficient enough to hold the conviction. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Joy Devaraj Vs. State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 473 needs to be noticed, which reads as under: “19. Even otherwise, section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ordains that no particular number of witnesses is required, in any case, to prove a fact. Therefore, it is not the law that a conviction cannot be recorded unless there is oral testimony of at least two witnesses matching with each other. It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters. If the evidence of a solitary witness appeals to the court to be wholly reliable, the same can form the foundation for recording a conviction.” In light of the above, this contention is also rejected. 15. The last submission which is placed before this Court whether the sentence of appellant can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate sentence to be imposed in facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under: “8.This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 16. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 16. In the same breath I am persuaded to mention herein below few lines from the judgment authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1926 :- “Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'” 17. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be consider. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'” 17. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be consider. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. 18. In case of Muddappa (Supra) while dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “Admittedly, there is no statutory bar for application of the Act to an offence under Section 304 Part II where the maximum punishment is neither death nor imprisonment for life. In that view of the matter and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that the Court did consider the relevant material and then came to the conclusion that the accused should be released on probation by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We see no infirmity with that order to be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, more so when nothing has been pointed out as to whether the accused has, in any way, violated the terms and conditions of allowing him on probation.” Relying upon the above judgment Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Radhakrishnan (Supra) extended benefit of Section 4 of the Act to the appellant therein and released him on probation of good conduct. In case of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has modified the sentence imposed under section 304 Part II of IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant therein. 19. In light of the above decisions it is to considered as to whether the sentence imposed on the appellant needs to be reduced and whether he could be extended benefit of section 4 of the Act. 19. In light of the above decisions it is to considered as to whether the sentence imposed on the appellant needs to be reduced and whether he could be extended benefit of section 4 of the Act. This Court has come across several mitigating circumstances such as the past track record of the accused/appellant being fair enough, as informed by counsel for the appellant this is the first criminal instance against the accused, that the incident had taken place about 21 years back, that being on bail the accused/appellant did not exhibit any unbecoming attitude as he has never misuse the liberty so granted and that with the passage of such a considerable long period, there is every likelihood that he might have settled in his family life and therefore, it would not be just and proper to unsettle him at this belated stage. Accordingly, as there is no minimum sentence provided under the Code for an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC , this Court viewing the mitigating circumstances as detailed above, it appear to be just and proper to make the appellant undergo RI for three year, which would suffice according to the considered opinion of this Court. Held accordingly. Apart from this, if the facts of the case are read along with the provision contained in Section 4 of Act and case law as referred above, the accused/appellant entitles himself to derive the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. 20. In aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction slapped by the trial Court is maintained and the sentence imposed on him is slashed to RI for three year. The appellant shall get the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. Appellant shall file one surety to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- each coupled with personal bond within 90 days from the date of order to the effect that he shall not commit any offence and shall observe good behaviors and shall maintain peace during the period of one year, if there is breach of any of the conditions, he will be subjected himself to undergo sentence imposed by this Court before the Court below. 21. Record of the trial Court be sent back alongwith this Judgment for information and necessary compliance. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.