JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated May 5, 1980 of learned Sessions Judge, Merta by appellant Likhmaram, who has been convicted under section 326, I.P C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. On the night intervening 11/ 12th of July, 1979 Purkharam injured was participating in a Jagran in Brahamano Ka Bas, Chhapta. At about mid night, Purkharam was over taken by sleep. In the state of sleep, appellant Purkharam was over taken by Likhmaram, Tulsaram and Bheru, and Likhmaram cut his nose and also gave a stab wound in his eye and also caused injury to his ear. Bhiyaram, Binjaram and Gopal perused the offender but they escaped. As condition of Purkharam was serious, he was taken to Nagaur hospital. Poonaram father of Purkharam lodged the report, Ex P/1 on 12-7-79 at 2 p.m. The police registered a case under sections 326 and 307, I.P.C. and started the usual investigation including the inspection of the site. Appellant Likhmaram was arrested on 23-7-79 and on his information a daggar was recovered and on another information a shirt and a dhoti was also recovered. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur against Likhmaram only. The appellant was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge believed eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Purkharam, P.W. 2 Bhinyaram and P.W. 3 Gopal and convicted the appellant in the manner stated above. It is not disputed before we that Purkharam was grievously injured, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. P.W. 8 Dr. Parihar, who examined Purkharam, found various injuries on his person. By the opinion of P.W. 5 Dr. Achariya, it is further proved that Purkharam was already blind by his right eye and had completely lost the vision of left eye by that injury. P.W. 6 Dr. Ratanlal was also examined, who X-rayed the some of the injuries for locating the fractures. On the basis of X-ray report and the opinion of P.W. 5 Dr. Achariya, Dr. Parihar was of the opinion that injuries No. 1, 3 and 6 were grievous. It is further in his opinion that these injuries were caused by a sharp weapon. 3. Ratanlal was also examined, who X-rayed the some of the injuries for locating the fractures. On the basis of X-ray report and the opinion of P.W. 5 Dr. Achariya, Dr. Parihar was of the opinion that injuries No. 1, 3 and 6 were grievous. It is further in his opinion that these injuries were caused by a sharp weapon. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that learned Sessions Judge has not relied upon the testimony of P.W. 2 Bhinyaram and P.W. 4 Gopal. It was improbable that P.W. 1 Purkharam injured could have identified the assailant. The argument is based on the supposition that the left eye of Purkharam was caused the first injury and as this has caused the total lose of the vision of left eye and as he has already blind by the right eye, he could not have identified the appellant. I have considered the argument carefully. In the statement before the court, P W. 1 Purkharam has specifically stated that first, his nose was cut and, thereafter, other injuries were caused. From this statement, it is not possible to say that the first injury was caused to Purkharam in his left eye and, therefore, he could not have seen the assailants, Of course, P.W. 2 Bhinyaram has stated that Likhmaram caused in injury in the eye and on the head. From this statement, it is not possible to hold that the first injury was caused to the eye of Purkharam. 5. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Purkharam is not a witness of sterling worth because in his statement at the trial he has tried to falsely implicate Bheru and Tulsaram. I have considered the argument carefully. It could not be said that Purkharam was not a witness of sterling worth as it appears that he has substantially deposed the truth at the trial. Of course, learned Sessions Judge though referred to the statement of P.W 2 Bhinyaram and P.W. 3 Gopal but did not give any finding as to their credibility. However, I have gone through the testimony of these two witnesses and find no reason to disbelieve them. Of course, learned Sessions Judge though referred to the statement of P.W 2 Bhinyaram and P.W. 3 Gopal but did not give any finding as to their credibility. However, I have gone through the testimony of these two witnesses and find no reason to disbelieve them. P.W, 2 Bhinyaram stated that Likhmaram appellant came and caused an injury to the eye of Purkharam and also gave a few more blows but he could not see the weapon of the offence. It was moonlit night and also hurricane was burning. They chesed the appellant but he threatened that he has injured Purkharam and would also assault them. I have carefully gone through this statement but could find no reason to disbelieve him, P.W. 3 Gopal has stated that he heard the noise that Purkharam has been attacked he saw a man running and they chesed him. Likhmaram threatened that he had already caused the injury to Purkharam. This statement though does not fully support the statements of P.W. 1 Purkha-ram and P.W- 2 Bhinyaram yet is sufficient to establish the identity of the assailants in the sense that he had chased him and Likhmaram admitted that he had caused injuries to Purkharam No doubt, learned Sessions Judge did not rely on the recovery of the daggar or shirt and dhoti on the information of the appellant as it could not be established that these were stained with human blood. However, having considered the prosecution evidence, I am of the opinion that the statement of Purkharam is reliable and further corroborated by the testimony of P.W.2 Bhinyaram and P.W.3 Gopal. He was rightly convicted by the trial court. 6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed is excessive. It is rare that rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is awarded for an offence under section 325, I.P.C. I have considered the argument and find some force Purkharam was caused grievous injuries. His nose was cut and his left eye lost the vision because of the injuries. However, the motive for the offence appears to be that Likhmaram appellant was prosecuting the injured and his father for the offence of f murder of his wife. His nose was cut and his left eye lost the vision because of the injuries. However, the motive for the offence appears to be that Likhmaram appellant was prosecuting the injured and his father for the offence of f murder of his wife. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the substantive sentence of 7 years would meet the ends of justice but sentence of fine needs no reduction. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but the substantive sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant by the trial court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. The sentence of fine is maintained.Appeal Dismissed. *******