JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of two persons Banka and Laxmi. The former has been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Deoria under Sec. 331 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The latter has been convicted under Sec. 331 read with Sec. 109 I. P. C. and also under Sec. 330 I. P. C. For the former offence he has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and for the latter to five years rigorous imprisonment. The two sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was that Ramakant was the Karinda of two Zamindars Babu Kamla Singh and Hira Singh. He was in charge of their Chhawani and used to reside in Tola Piparahia of village Badahara Lakshmipur. The two appellants who are own brothers had borrowed some money from the masters of Ramakant by executing a pronote. In connection with the debt they had barrowcd they had put Ramakant in possession of two plots of land No. 1992 and 1996 of village Badahara Lakshmipur. The total area of the two plots was 1.75 acres. They had a grievance against Ramakant because according to them the debt had been satisfied but Ramakant had not returned to them the pronote in respect of the debt, nor had he restored to them the possession over the two plots. Ramakant however, contended that the whole debt had not been satisfied. On the 14th of July, 1957 at about 3.0 P. M. Ramakant left his house for Tola Jagannathpur. He reached the Ghota (a sort of hut). He was going to see one Jwala Babu in connection with the purchase of some land from him. One Mahanath Rai was the person who was arranging for the sale. Ramakant had taken with him a person named Sahdeo Ahir. He reached the Ghota (a sort of hut) of Awadhi Mallah in Tola Jagannathpur and stopped there. He met Mahanth Rai there and had a talk with him. As a result of the talk it became unnecessary for him to proceed to the house of Jwala Babu. He then returned from the hut of Awadhi mallah and was going back to his own house. At about 5.00 P.M. he reached near a mound on the way where there were `moonj' shrubs on both sides. As a result of the talk it became unnecessary for him to proceed to the house of Jwala Babu. He then returned from the hut of Awadhi mallah and was going back to his own house. At about 5.00 P.M. he reached near a mound on the way where there were `moonj' shrubs on both sides. As soon as he reached there Banka appellant emerged from the `moonj' shrubs and demanded from him the pronote which he had executed and possession over the two plots. He was told that the pronote was at the `chhawani' and that if the full amount of the debt was paid it will be given back to him. Banka then began to abuse Ramakant and caught hold of his arms. By the time Lakshmi had also emerged from the `moonj' shrubs and began to beat Ramakant with his lathi. Ramakant fell down on the ground. Laxmi then caught hold of his hand while Banka put his fingers in the sockets of the eyes of Ramakant and pulled out both of his eye-balls. An alarm was raised by Ramakant and his companion Sahdeo who was going a few paces ahead of him and several other persons including Ramjati, Rajdeo and Bhairo responded to the alarm. The appellants however, succeeded in running away. Ramakant was carried to his `chhawani' and from there to the police station which was six miles away. He lodged a report there at about 8.45 P. M. on the same day. He was medically examined. Investigation was started and as a result of it the two appellants were prosecuted and ultimately committed to the court of session to stand their trial. 3. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Banka could not offer any explanation as to why the case had been started against him falsely. Laxmi said that he had been implicated because he was the brother of Banka. The appellants said that they had all along been in possession of the plots Nos. 1992 and 1996 and Ramakant had never been in possession of the same. They also suggested that the eyes of Ramakant had been taken out in connection with his licentiousness. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version as correct and convicted the appellants of the offences already mentioned and sentenced them as stated above. 5. 1992 and 1996 and Ramakant had never been in possession of the same. They also suggested that the eyes of Ramakant had been taken out in connection with his licentiousness. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution version as correct and convicted the appellants of the offences already mentioned and sentenced them as stated above. 5. The main contention urged on behalf of the appellants in appeal is that the evidence produced was unsatisfactory and that the whole prosecution case became unacceptable because the appellants had all along been in possession of the two plots of land in connection with the return of which dispute is said to have taken place. 6. There can be no doubt that Ramakant was attacked on the 14th of July 1957 in the evening and lost both of his eyes in-that attack. He was examined by Dr. R. S. Gupta the next day at 9.30 A. M. and the Doctor found the following injuries on his person:- 1. and 2: Rupture of the cornia of both the eyes with opacity of all media and contusion with laceration of the front of both the eye-balls with complete loss of vision and laceration broad into depth of eye lid. of inner half left lower eye lid and ecchymosis in the orbits all around. The injuries were grievous. 3. Contusion 2"x 3" with swelling 3"x2" round it in left on its outer side in lower third. This injury was kept under observation. 4. Contusion 3"x1" on left side of the back 2" above iliac erest. 5. Contusion 2"x3" on the back of the left forearm in the middle with an abrasion half inch by ?" in its middle. 6. Swelling 2"x1" on the right side of buttock. Injuries Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were simple. All injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were 12 to 24 hours old. 7. According to the Doctor the contusion had been caused by some blunt weapon and injuries nos. 1 & 2 could have been caused by human fingers. 8. To prove the case that the appellants were the persons who attacked Ramakant and were responsible for the injuries received in course of the attack the prosecution examined Ramakant (P. W. 7) the victim and two witnesses Ramagati (P. W. 4) and Rajdeo (P. W. 6). 1 & 2 could have been caused by human fingers. 8. To prove the case that the appellants were the persons who attacked Ramakant and were responsible for the injuries received in course of the attack the prosecution examined Ramakant (P. W. 7) the victim and two witnesses Ramagati (P. W. 4) and Rajdeo (P. W. 6). It also relied on the extracts of the village papers to prove that Ramakant was in possession of the two plots. 9. Ramakant supported the prosecution case in full but the two witnesses he examined though they had supported the prosecution case before the Committing Magistrate turned back on their statements and had to be declared hostile in the sessions court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, therefore, brought on record their statements under Sec. 288 Cr. P. C. recorded before the Committing Magistrate. He was, however, of opinion that because they had contradicted their own earlier statements much importance could not be attached to their testimony and they could not be considered to be reliable witnesses. He was, however, very favourably impressed with the statement of the victim Ramakant and accepted his testimony in full. He gave detailed reasons for attaching so much value to his evidence. 10. Ramgati (P. W. 4) even in his examination-in-chief stated that he had no knowledge of the occurrence. His previous statement recorded during investigation was put to him in cross-examination but he denied having made the statement. The investigating officer however, proved that that statement had been made. His statement before the Committing Magistrate was then put to him. He admitted having made it but stated that he had made it falsely because the police had threatened to kill him. He, however, admitted that while the case was pending before the Committing Magistrate he had made an application in which he had prayed for protection on the ground that the appellants had threatened that they will do to him the same as they had done to Ramakant. In these circumstances the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge was of opinion that what the witness was stating in the sessions court was not true and that his earlier statement made before the Committing Magistrate was correct. He, therefore, brought that statement on record under Sec. 288 Cr. P. C. 11. In these circumstances the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge was of opinion that what the witness was stating in the sessions court was not true and that his earlier statement made before the Committing Magistrate was correct. He, therefore, brought that statement on record under Sec. 288 Cr. P. C. 11. Rajdeo (P. W. 6) also refused to support the prosecution case when he was examined in the court of sessions. His previous statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. was put to him and his previous statement in the committing court was also put to him. The explanation he gave for making those statements was that he had been overawed by the police. The explanation was obviously unacceptable. In respect of him too it was obvious that he was not stating the truth in the sessions court and, therefore, his statement was also brought on record under Sec. 288 Cr. P. C. 12. The view taken by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was that because these two witnesses had made statements in his court which was different from what they had stated during investigation and in the committing court they became unreliable witnesses and their statements in the committing court also could not be relied upon. It appears to be difficult to uphold this view of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Sec. 288 provides as follows :- "The evidence of a witness duly recorded in the presence of the accused under Ch. XVIII may, in the discretion of the presiding Judge, if such witness is produced and examined, be treated as evidence in the case for all purposes subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1873." It is clear from the provisions of this section that once an earlier statement of a witness is brought on record under Sec. 288 of the Code it is to be treated as evidence in the case for all purposes subject of course, to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. If it is to be treated as evidence, it has to be considered on its own merits. It should be borne in mind that the earlier statement is brought on record under Sec. 288 only if the court is satisfied that the latter statement made before it is not true. If it is to be treated as evidence, it has to be considered on its own merits. It should be borne in mind that the earlier statement is brought on record under Sec. 288 only if the court is satisfied that the latter statement made before it is not true. If the latter statement is not true and the court is satisfied in that respect and also feels that the earlier statement is true and brings it on the record on that account it cannot reject the earlier statement merely on the ground that it is different from the statement made later. 13. In the case of Gopi v. State, 1955 ALJ 201 it was laid down:- "The statement of a witness before the Committing Magistrate can be admitted under Sec. 288, Cr. P. C. as a substantive piece of evidence only when the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the statement made by such a witness before him was not the true and correct statement and that made before the Committing Magistrate was a correct statement. Having admitted the statement of a witness made before the Committing Magistrate under Sec. 288, Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge is not justified in discarding it on the ground that it is not a true and correct statement." 14. In a later case of Tika Ram and others v. The State, 1958 ALJ 104 it was said :- "The statements admitted under Sec. 288, Cr. P. C. are substantive evidence in the case and the court is fully entitled to rely upon them." 15. If the view of the Assistant Sessions Judge is accepted the bringing on record of the earlier statement of a witness under Sec. 288, Cr. P. C. will serve no useful purpose at all because in that case it will stand automatically rejected on the ground that it is different from the one made in the court of session. In that case there can be no question of its being used as substantive evidence in the case. If the statements of these witnesses made in the Committing Court are considered on their merits I think there are no valid reasons why they should not be accepted as correct. In that case there can be no question of its being used as substantive evidence in the case. If the statements of these witnesses made in the Committing Court are considered on their merits I think there are no valid reasons why they should not be accepted as correct. From the conduct of these witnesses it is obvious that they had either been won over or had been overawed by the appellants while they were appearing in the court of session is why they went back on their earlier statements. The statements they made in the committing court are quite in accord with the statement of Ramakant the victim of the assault and there is nothing intrinsic in these statements to show that the witnesses were not telling the truth at that time. 16. So far as the evidence of Ramakant (P. W. 7) is concerned the learned Assistant Sessions Judge appears to be perfectly justified in his view that it was quite reliable. It was corroborated by the first information report which he had lodged without delay. The medical evidence also supported it and the case which Ramrkant put forward was natural as well as probable. I have read the statement carefully and have no hesitation in considering it reliable and true. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the prosecution version. 17. The case that the two plots of land no. 1992 and 1996 of Barahara Lakshmipur had been put in the possession of Ramakant in lieu of the debt that had been borrowed from his masters received the support from the entries in the village papers. In the khasras for the years 1358F to 1363F Ramakant was entered as `dar shikami' of the plots. In the Khasra for the year 1364F his name was not there but the explanation offered was that the Patwari was inimical to Ramakant and had on that account omitted his name. If Ramakant's name was there from 1358F to 1363F and Ramakant was in possession the chances are that he continued in possession in 1364F. The case put forward by the appellants was that he had never been in possession at all. If he was never in possession there is no explanation why the name of Ramakant was entered in the Khasra as `dar shikami' in the years 1358F to 1364F. The case put forward by the appellants was that he had never been in possession at all. If he was never in possession there is no explanation why the name of Ramakant was entered in the Khasra as `dar shikami' in the years 1358F to 1364F. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge thus appears to be correct in his view that he was in possession and that the appellant's case that they had been in possession throughout was not true. 18. The prosecution thus established that the appellants had a grudge against Ramakant because they felt that they had satisfied the loan and he had not returned to them the pronote in respect of it and had also not restored possession over the two plots. At the time of the incident Banka and Laxmi accused demanded from Ramakant the return of the pronote as well as restoration of the plots. It was in connection with that demand that they not only assaulted Ramakant but took out both of his eyes and blinded him for life. 19. The main offence was committed by Banka who actually took out the eyes of Ramakant with his own fingers. Laxmi abetted the offence by catching hold of Ramakant while his eyes were being taken out. Laxmi also caused hurt to Ramakant with his lathi. Both these offences were committed in connection with the demand for the pronote and for the restoration of the two plots. It, therefore, appears to me that the conviction of the appellant Banka under Sec. 331 I. P. C. and of Laxmi appellant under Sec. 351 I.P.C. read with Sec. 109 I. P. C. as well as under Sec. 330 I. P. C. was justified. Keeping in view the cruel and callous nature of the offence and the fact that Ramakant has been blinded for life I think the sentences imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge were fully deserved by the two appellants. No reduction appears to be called for. 20. The appeal, therefore, fails and the convictions and sentences of the appellants are upheld. They are on bail. They must surrender to their bail and serve out their sentences.