JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - The appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. They have also been convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences have to run concurrently. Against their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad they have come up to this court in appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 15-7-1975 at about 10.30 P.M. one Dharamraj while he was on his way to his house, the three accused persons attacked him with knives. On alarm being raised by Dharamraj, several persons of the village came on the scene of occurrence including Ram Naresh. On the remonstrance of the persons collected on the scene of occurrence the accused persons ran away. Dharamraj in his attempt to save himself managed to snatch the knife of Banshoo one of the accused persons which was produced before the police. Bansraj has been referred to in this case as Banshoo. The first information report about this incident was lodged by Dharamraj at police station. Jalalpur at 1.05 A.M. The police station is at a distance of nine miles from the scene of occurrence. It has come in evidence that Dharamraj was taken to the police station in a cot and later on in a taxi. On the basis of the first information report this case was registered against the present appellants. Dharamraj was examined by P. W. 4 Dr. Shyama Prasad and he found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound l" x ?" x ?" left side face head at the middle and of the left eyebrow directed upward and bleeding. 2. Incised wound " x ?" x ?" ora the chin left side adjacent to the mid-line, directed downwards. 3. Incised wound " x 1/10" x 3/10" over right side chin directed outward. 4. Incised wound ?" x 1/10" x 1/10", " below injury No. 3 with oozing of blood. 5. Incised wound " x ?" x ?" over right side neck directed down-wards. 6. Incised wound 2/ 5 " x 1/10" x 1/10" over left side face, directed downwards. 7. 4. Incised wound ?" x 1/10" x 1/10", " below injury No. 3 with oozing of blood. 5. Incised wound " x ?" x ?" over right side neck directed down-wards. 6. Incised wound 2/ 5 " x 1/10" x 1/10" over left side face, directed downwards. 7. Incised wound " x ?" x " left side back in the upper l/3rd part in the scapular region directed downwards. 8. Incised wound " x ?" x 1/10" right side back middle one-third. 9. Incised wound 2" x ?" x 1/10" over the right side back lower one-third' directed to the right side. 10. Punctured wound 2/ 5 " x 1/10" x " in the right axilla, 4" above to the right nipple directed backward, margins clean cut. Oozing blood. 11. Punctured wound l" x l/2" x cavity deep, over the right side chest lower one third, 6" below right of the nipple, margins clean cut, directed downwards, kept under observations, advised X-ray. 12. Incised wound 12/ 5 " x 2/ 5 " x 1/10" front right wrist joint, directing downwards. 13. Incised wound 2/ 5 " x 1/10" x skin deep on the palmer surface of left thumb. 14. Incised wound 1?" x ?" x 2/ 5 " in the web between left thumb and index finger of left' hand directed downwards and medially. 2. According to the opinion of Dr. Shyama Prasad all the injuries were simple. Injury No. 11 was a punctured wound and was kept under observations. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by some sharp edged weapon. The Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet Ext. Ka-5. He also collected blood-stained earth from the spot. 3. In support of the prosecution version, the prosecution examined five witnesses in all. The main evidence about the incident is that of P.W. 2 Dharamraj who received injuries on his person and P.W. 2 Ram Naresh who is alleged to have appeared on the scene of occurrence. 4. The accused persons put up the defence that they have been implicated on account of enmity and some unknown person had inflicted injuries on Dharamraj and they have been falsely implicated in the case. 5. In this appeal I have heard Mr. S.C. Bajpai for the appellants and Mrs. Usha Chatterjee on behalf of the State. 4. The accused persons put up the defence that they have been implicated on account of enmity and some unknown person had inflicted injuries on Dharamraj and they have been falsely implicated in the case. 5. In this appeal I have heard Mr. S.C. Bajpai for the appellants and Mrs. Usha Chatterjee on behalf of the State. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the case put forward by the prosecution is not reliable. He submitted that in the first information report, no mention was made as to how in the night the victim recognised his assailants. The first information report was read out to me and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no indication as to whether there was any light in which the accused persons could be identified. The learned counsel then drew my attention to the statement of P. W. 1 Dharamraj in which he stated that the accused persons were identified in the moon light. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the introduction of the fact that Dharamraj recognised the assailants in the moonlight appears to be an afterthought as in the first information report he did not mention about this fact. According to the learned counsel the prosecution faced with the difficulty as to how Dharamraj recognised the accused in a dark night, for the first time introduced the story that the accused persons were recognised in the moonlight. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel, I examined the calendar for the year 1975 which indicated that the moon rise was 11.44 A. M. and the setting of the moon was at 23.26 P. M. It appears that at 10.30 P. M. there was some light. In my opinion, the question of light is hardly of any significance. Even if the existence of light was not mentioned in the first information report that will not really affect the merits of the case. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Dharamraj that he was attacked by the appellants with knives. According to the statement of the witness, the knives, were ordinary knives in daily use. It has also come in evidence that Dharamraj came in close contact with his assailants to such extent that he was able to snatch the knife from one of the accused persons, namely, Bansraj. According to the statement of the witness, the knives, were ordinary knives in daily use. It has also come in evidence that Dharamraj came in close contact with his assailants to such extent that he was able to snatch the knife from one of the accused persons, namely, Bansraj. It has also come in evidence that the accused persons are known to the witness and they are also related. In this state of affairs, it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that Dharamraj was not in a position to recognise his assailants. The appellants were known persons and in scuffle they came in contact with each other to such an extent that Dharamraj was able to snatch the knife from Bansraj. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Desraj v. State (1969 All LJ 784) and submitted that although the evidence of the injured person deserved consideration but there may be circumstances in which even the evidence of the injured person has to be disbelieved. He, accordingly, submitted that this Court may not attach considerable importance to the fact that the injured person has deposed about the manner in which the incident took place. In this respect the learned counsel relied upon the following observations of the Division Bench in the above-mentioned case:- "The learned trial Judge was influenced by the consideration that an injured person would not screen the real offenders and falsely implicate others. This is a weighty consideration only when there is no doubt about the fact that the occurrence took place in such circumstances that an injured person could not have failed to recognise the culprits, but where the existence of circumstances of such a nature becomes doubtful, this consideration is out of place, because the implication of the accused persons may then be due to enmity or suspicion." This case is, however, distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. There is ample evidence to show that the incident took place in the night and in the scuffle P. W. 1 Dharamraj snatched the knife from Banshoo appellant. This indicates that P. W. 1 Dharamraj came in close grips with the accused persons. It is not in dispute that the appellants and Dharamraj P. W. 1 were known to each other. This indicates that P. W. 1 Dharamraj came in close grips with the accused persons. It is not in dispute that the appellants and Dharamraj P. W. 1 were known to each other. In this state of evidence, there is every reason to believe that P. W. 1 Dharamraj could recognise his assailants. The facts of the said case reveal that there was a dispute in that case whether the incident took place in the night or in the day time. The prosecution case was that Jhe incident took place at 4 P. M. The Hon'ble Judges observed that they were not certain that occurrence took place in day-light. On the other hand they were of the view that the incident took place at night. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judges observed that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of the injured person as the possibility of implication due to enmity had not been ruled out. The situation in the instant case is entirely different from the one that existed in the case of Desraj v. State (supra). The evidence of P. W. 1 Dharamraj has been accepted by the court below which indicates that the incident took place in the night. No other place or time of incident is suggested by the defence. In this view of the matter, it is not unreasonable to believe that the incident took place at the night in which Dharamraj claims to have received injuries. The fact that he received injuries is also substantiated by the evidence of P. W. 4 the doctor who examined his injuries. In my opinion, the circumstances of the instant case are entirely different from the circumstances of the case reported in Desraj v. State (supra) and it is not possible for the appellant to derive any assistance from the observations quoted above. 7. In Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1976 SC 2027 ), the observations of Untwalia, J., in similar circumstances were as follows:- "Since he was injured in the same occurrence undoubtedly, his ocular version of the incident is of great value to the prosecution". 7. In Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1976 SC 2027 ), the observations of Untwalia, J., in similar circumstances were as follows:- "Since he was injured in the same occurrence undoubtedly, his ocular version of the incident is of great value to the prosecution". Relying upon the observation quoted above, I am of the view that the evidence of P. W. 1 Dharamraj who received as many as 14 injuries on his person, came in contact with the accused persons at close quarters and was able to snatch the knife from one of the appellants, is of great value in assessing whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellants. Moreover, the evidence of P. W. 4, the doctor, amply corroborates, the incident deposed to by P. W. 1 Dharamraj. The injuries caused are by knife as deposed to by the witnesses and the doctor states that the injuries could be caused by knife. 8. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that although the prosecution had in its possession the knife with which the injuries are said to have been caused, the said knife was not placed before the doctor and the doctor did not explain whether the injuries found on the person of Dharamraj could be caused by the knife in question. In support' of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Kartarey v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1976 SC 76 ) and Ishwar Singh v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1976 SC 2423 ). By reference to the case reported in Kartarey v. State of U. P. (supra) the learned counsel relied upon the following observations of the Judges:- "We take this opportunity of emphasising the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice, particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species e. g. stab wounds, and the problem before the court is whether all or any of those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice". 9. From a perusal of the facts of the case it appears that in the incident weapons, namely, Kanta and the knife, were used. The question that arose was whether the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused by one weapon or the other. It was in those circumstances that the learned Judge of the Supreme Court observed that the weapon with which the injuries were caused should have been put to the doctor to enable him to express his opinion whether the injury was caused by that weapon or not. The observations quoted above have no application to the instant case as it is the admitted case of the parties that only knives were used which were of ordinary type. If more than one sharp edged weapon had been used then the observations quoted above might have some application. In Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1976 SC 2423 ) (supra) it appears that two weapons were used, namely, Bhala and Ballam, and the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court relied upon Kartarey v. State of U. P. (supra) and made reference to the quotation which has been already quoted above. In the latter case also the observations were made in connection with the fact whether the injury was caused by Ballam or by Bhala. After having considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants by reference to the said two decisions, I am of the view that the said decisions have no application to the instant case and are distinguishable on facts. 10. It was then contended that there was evidence on record that there was blood on the spot and it was collected by the Investigating officer. It was contended that it was the duty of the prosecution to have sent the blood to the chemical examiner and the serologist for examination. 10. It was then contended that there was evidence on record that there was blood on the spot and it was collected by the Investigating officer. It was contended that it was the duty of the prosecution to have sent the blood to the chemical examiner and the serologist for examination. The necessity for sending the blood to chemical examiner and the serologist would arise only if it was in dispute whether the blood was human blood or not. It is the case of the prosecution that on the spot m question the appellants attacked Dharmaraj. It has also come in evidence that Dharamraj was profusely bleeding. It is also in evidence that the injuries of Dharamraj were such as would cause blood to come out from the body of Dharamraj. In the face of this evidence there could be no dispute that the blood in question was human blood and if the prosecution version is believed then it has to be accepted that the blood found on the spot was the one which had oozed out from the wounds of Dharamraj. In this view of the matter. I see no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the blood earth should have been sent to the Chemical examiner and the serologist. 11. It was next contended on behalf of the appellants that the Court below relied incorrectly on the evidence of Ram Naresh as a witness to corroborate the prosecution case. The learned counsel has submitted that it has come in evidence that Ram Nareshs house is at such a distance from the scene of occurrence that even if P. W. l Dharamraj had shouted, he could not have reached the scene of occurrence to witness the incident and depose about it. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in this respect appears to be correct. The evidence is that when he reached the scene of occurrence P. W. 1 Dharamraj had been injured and the accused persons were running away. It is true that Ram Naresh has not been able to corroborate the prosecution version but it cannot be disputed that he reached the scene of occurrence where Dharamraj had been injured and the accused persons were seen running away. It is true that Ram Naresh has not been able to corroborate the prosecution version but it cannot be disputed that he reached the scene of occurrence where Dharamraj had been injured and the accused persons were seen running away. Even if the evidence of Ram Naresh is held not to corroborate the prosecution version in full, the evidence of P. W. 1 Dharamraj cannot be brushed aside on the ground of his being an interested witness. His statement receives ample corroboration from the medical evidence as also from the circumstantial evidence of the case. In this respect, I find support from the observation made by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1978 SC 414 ). 12. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that there is no merit in in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. The appellants are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence afforded to them.