JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. 1. THIS appeal has been preferred by Daulat who has been convicted under sections 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced on the former count to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and on the latter count to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. RAGHUBAR Prasad alias Gunga along with his wife Smt. Kamla, mother Smt Sumitra and his elder brother Shyama Charan lived on the upper storey of his house in mohalla-Hajariana in Jhansi town. Since the pressure of water supplied by the Municipal Board was low, they had to come down to the ground floor to take the water. Daulat, appellant, who lived in the neighbourhood, also used to take water from that very tap. Three or four days before the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1-7-1973, a quarrel had taken place between Daulat, the appellant, and Smt. Kamla, wife of Raghubar Prasad. In that incident, Kamla had received injuries and she had lodged a report at the police station. On 1st July, 1973, when Smt. Kamla and her mother-in-law, Smt. Sumitra, were taking water from the tap at about 5.30 p. m., Daulat came on a bicycle and brandished a knife to attack Smt. Kamla. Raghubar Prasad alias Gunga, who was also present there intervened to save his wife. He came in their midst but the appellant saying, "pahile tujhe he yamraj ke ghar pahuchadon" stabbed Gunga alias Raghubar Pd. When Smt. Sumitra tried to intervene, she also received incised wound. In the meantime, the witnesses arrived but Daulat appellant ran away leaving his bicycle and the knife. 3. THE report of the occurrence was lodged at police station Kotwali, Jhansi on 1st July, 1973 at about 5.50 p.m. Raghubar Pd. was examined by Dr. P. Nigam, medical officer, district hospital, Jhansi at 6:05 p.m. He found on his person two incised wounds. One incised wound 3.5 x 0.8 cms x 3 cm (probe passed upto 3 cm) in oblique direction facing towards right from mid line was over spigastion. Fresh blood was seen. The other incised wound was 1 x 0.3 cm over dorsum of right index finger over first interphalyngeal joint. He was admitted in hospital for observation. The injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. He was later on transferred to Medical College, Jhansi where he was operated upon by Dr. S, P. Atrey. Fresh blood was seen. The other incised wound was 1 x 0.3 cm over dorsum of right index finger over first interphalyngeal joint. He was admitted in hospital for observation. The injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon. He was later on transferred to Medical College, Jhansi where he was operated upon by Dr. S, P. Atrey. The injuries of Smt. Sumitra were examined on 1st July, 1973 at 6.25 p.m. and she had an incised wound i.e. O.S cm skin deep superficial over left side of face 1 cm away foreshead nose. She had also received an abrasion on the root of left finger. The injuries were simple, caused by a sharp weapon and their duration was within six hours. The case was investigated by Sri D. D. Sharma, S. O., Kotwali, Jhansi. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded statements of Shyam Charan and others and prepared a site-plan. He recovered blood from the scence of occurrence, a bicycle of the appellant, and also a knife left by him. The recovered articles, that is, blood-stained earth, unstained earth, the bicycle, and the knife were separately sealed. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses. He recorded the statement of Gunga alias Raghubar Pd. on 9th July, 1973 in writing as he (the victim Gunga) could not speak as he was deaf and dumb and the signs made by him were unintelligible. After completing the investigation, be submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. APPELLANT Daulat admitted the earlier incident, but stated that he had not caused any injury in the earlier incident to Smt. Kamla. Regarding the latter incident, he stated that at the time of occurrence when he was passing in front of the house of Gunga alias Raghubar Pd. he was caught hold by Gunga, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Sumitra and they took him forcibly inside their house. There Smt. Kamla picked a knife and wanted to stab him but he ducked and the knife hit Gunga. On account of fear, he nan away from the place of occurrence leaving his bicycle behind. The prosecution examined first informant, Shyama Charan, PW 7 the two injured Smt. Sumitra (PW 1), Raghubar Pd. alias Gunga, and Smt. Kamla who is an eye-witness and had received injuries in the earlier incident. Besides these witnesses, Dr. P. Nigam (PW 6) who had examined injuries of Raghubar Pd. The prosecution examined first informant, Shyama Charan, PW 7 the two injured Smt. Sumitra (PW 1), Raghubar Pd. alias Gunga, and Smt. Kamla who is an eye-witness and had received injuries in the earlier incident. Besides these witnesses, Dr. P. Nigam (PW 6) who had examined injuries of Raghubar Pd. alias Gunga and Smt. Sumitra (PW 1), and Dr. S. P. Atrey (PW 8) who had operated upon the injuries of Gunga, were examined. Dr. R. C. Gupta (PW 5) found two contusions on the person of Smt. Kamla on 29th June, 1973, was also examined. Apart from these witnesses, the head-moharrir, the Investigating Officer and a number of formal witnesses were examined. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence. 5. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of Smt. Sumitra (PW 1), Smt. Kamla (PW 2) and Raghubar Prasad alias Gunga (PW 3). He found the corroboration) of the testimony from the medical evidence. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 6. LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in believing the prosecution witnesses and convicting the appellant. So far as the earlier incident is concerned, it is stated in details by Smt. Kamla (PW 3) that 3 or 4 days before the incident in question, the appellant had caused her injuries. She had also got her injuries examined. The contusions received by her find corroboration from the statement of Dr. R. C. Gupta. The appellant also admitted that incident but stated that he did not cause any injuries to Smt. Kamla. However, since the fact of Smt. Kamla having received injuries is borne out by the statement of Dr. R. G. Gupta (PW 5), I do not see any reason to disbelieve Smt. Kamla about the incident that took place 3 or 4 days before the incident in question. 7. RAGHUBAR alias Gunga (PW 3) is the person who had received incised wound in the abdomen, is a deaf and a dumb person. The learned Sessions Judge, was, therefore, very particular in putting questions to him as the witness was literate and answered questions only in writing or by signs. He could only answer the questions put to him in writing that it was 5.30 p.m. on 1st July that the appellant came on a bicycle. The learned Sessions Judge, was, therefore, very particular in putting questions to him as the witness was literate and answered questions only in writing or by signs. He could only answer the questions put to him in writing that it was 5.30 p.m. on 1st July that the appellant came on a bicycle. He even pointed out the appellant as the person who had come on the bicycle and pointed out that he had something in his hand with which he caused injury in his abdomen and injury in his finger. He also wrote that he was stabbed with that knife. He could not properly write the word 'knife' but by signs it was intelligible to the court that he pointed out that it was a knife. He also was able to make it intelligible by the signs that the knife was taken out by the appellant from the pocket of his trousers who opened it and stabbed him in the abdomen. He also pointed out the place in the abdomen where he received the injury. He could not, however, give any reason why the appellant stabbed him. From cross-examination, it appeared that there was some doubt on the manner in which his statement u/Sec. 161 CrPC was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Even if there is some defect in examination under section 161 CrPC, the relevant evidence is one which is recorded before the court and the court has to be satisfied about the truth of the statement made by such a witness. From the statement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is abundantly clear that the witness had made it very clear that the appellant had come on a bicycle, took out his knife and stabbed the witness. The statement, therefore, incriminates the appellant. As has been rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, this witness could not be tutored to say any particular thing. 8. SECTION 119 of the Evidence Act provides "A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he could make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs ; but such writing must be written and signs made in open court. 8. SECTION 119 of the Evidence Act provides "A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he could make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs ; but such writing must be written and signs made in open court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence." In the instant case, the manner in which the statement has been recorded by the court fully meets the requirements of the above section. I, therefore, do not see any reason for not placing reliance on his statement. Apart from Raghubar (P.W. 3), Smt. Sumitra (P.W. 1) had also received an incised wound and an abrasion. She is the mother of the victim Raghubar Pd. Her presence is admitted on the scene of occurrence. In hear statement, she fully supported the prosecution case. According to her, the appellant came on a bicycle, rushed to Smt. Kamla with the knife and when Raghubar Pd. intervened, he was stabbed in his abdomen. There is hardly any reason for not placing reliance on her testimony. Smt. Kamla (P.W. 2) also fully support the prosecution case. She has stated that : "Muljim Oaulat cycle par yahan aaya esne apni cycle wahin daal di aur mujhe marne daura. Yeh apne hath main chakoo liye hue tha usne kaha ki tumhe ab bachne nanhee denge. Main chilla pari aur apne ko bachane ke liye dauri. Mujhe bachane mera admi daur kar aya, phir muljm Daulat ne chackoo mere pati ke maar diya jo uske pet ke beech main sine ke neenche laga. (gawah ne esara karke bataya) usne chakoo marte samay yah kaha tha ki pahle tujhe hi dikhate hain tujhe yamraj ke ghar bhej dete hain." 9. THE occurrence took place inside the house of Raghubar Prasad. Appellant admits her presence on the scene of occurrence. She was the target on account of earlier incident but unfortunately the injuries were received by Raghubar Pd. who came to save her. From the statement of Shyama Charan (P. W. 7) the first informant, it appears that he arrived at the scene of occurrence after the incident had taken place and the appellant had run away from the scene of occurrence. His testimony, therefore, can be ignored. 10. who came to save her. From the statement of Shyama Charan (P. W. 7) the first informant, it appears that he arrived at the scene of occurrence after the incident had taken place and the appellant had run away from the scene of occurrence. His testimony, therefore, can be ignored. 10. IT has been contended that reliance should not be placed on the testimony of Smt. Sumitra (P. W. 1) and Smt. Kamla (P. W. 2) as both are closely related to Raghubar Prasad alias Gunga. I do not see any reason why reliance should not be placed on these witnesses, simply for the reasons that no independent witness comes to support the prosecution case. Since the presence of all the witnesses was natural and one of these witnesses had received injuries, there is no reason to disbelieve them. The occurrence took place in broad-day light and there was no reason for mistaking the identify of the appellant. It is difficult to believe that they would absolve the real assailant and falsely implicate the appellant. Besides these witnesses, I have already held Raghubar Pd. alias Gunga as a reliable witness. In view of the categorical statements of these witnesses, 1 am not prepared to place reliance on the version of the appellant that Raghubar Prasad alias Guaga and the two women, Smt. Sumitra and Smt. Kamla, caught hold of him and carried him inside their house forcibly. IT is also not believable that Smt. Kamla tried to stab the appelant and Raghubar Pd. alias Gunga received injuries when appellant Daulat, ducked. The prosecution case against the appellant is fully established. Injuries are on the vital part of the body and it also caused tear in the liver. His intention could not be but to cause death of the victim. He was, therefore, rightly convicted under Sec. 307 IPO. The sentence imposed also does not err on the side of severity. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed are hereby confirmed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. --- Appeal dismissed.