JUDGMENT J.K. Mathur, J. - This appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi on 16.7.79, finding the accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 307, I.P.C. and sentencing him to under go imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. A report was lodged at P.S. Chowk, Varanasi on 27.11.78 at 2.5 a.m. by Mohd. Haneef. According to it he and his wife's brother Irshad Ahmad Khan were sleeping in their house. During the night when the accused Taj Ahmad knocked at the door, the informant opened the door. The accused informed that he had some work with Irshad Ahmad. He came into the courtyard. Irshad Ahmad also came Taj Ahmad accused caused an injury with a knife at the abdomen of Irshad Ahmad and ran away. Irshad Ahmad fell down. Asghar Ahmad and Usman saw the accused running away. The injured was taken to the hospital from where the informant went to the Police Station and lodged the report. The medical examination of the accused was conducted by Dr. C.N. Shukla at 2.00 a.m. the same night. He found one incised wound 27 cm x 8 cm x cavity deep over front of upper part of abdomen running 2 cm above umbilicus. There was profusion of stomach transverse colon and small intestine. There was another incised wound 5 cm x 2/10 cm x skin deep over lateral part of right hand just below the wrist. These injuries were fresh and according to the doctor, had been caused by a sharp edged weapon. 3. The investigation was conducted by Sri Amar Nath Bhartiya S.I. who prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses and after taking certain articles in his custody completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. 5. The accused in a written statement filed by him has pleaded that there was a dispute between Irshad Ahmad and Ishtiaq Ahmad about the house and because the accused visited Ishtiaq, Irshad Ahmad and his brother-in-law have falsely implicated him. He also states that the injured could not get married and wanted to marry the sister of the accused. When the accused performed the marriage of his sister the injured threatened him to get him implicated falsely. 6. On behalf of prosecution P.W. 1 Mohd. He also states that the injured could not get married and wanted to marry the sister of the accused. When the accused performed the marriage of his sister the injured threatened him to get him implicated falsely. 6. On behalf of prosecution P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef, and P.W. 2 Irshad Ahmad Khan were examined as witnesses of occurrence. In addition to P.W. 5 Asghar Alam and P.W. 6 Mohd. Usman, P.W. 3 Hardeep Singh, P.W. 4 Dr. C.N. Shukia and P.W. 7 Amar Nath Bhartiya the investigating Officer were also examined. 7. The accused also examined D.W.1 Dr. Prem Shanker Shukia to prove the statement made by the injured. 8. After considering the entire evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused to be guilty. He was convicted and sentenced. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant urged firstly that the prosecution had not been able to prove that there was light at the time of incident and, therefore, the fact that the accused committed the offence had not been proved by the material on record. It was also urged that P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef was a resident of Allahabad and could not have seen the incident which was allegedly committed at the residence of P.W.2 Irshad Ahmad Khan. 10. The second part of the contention of the appellant does not have any force. The incident is alleged to have been committed at 12.15 in the night. The medical examination was conducted at 2.00 p.m. The report was lodged at 2.05 a.m. the same night. Admittedly Mohd. Haneef is the residence of Allahabad. According to him he had gone on leave and was staying with the injured. Had he been at Allahabad at the time the incident which had taken place at Varanasi, it was not possible for him to have reached Varanasi police station at 2.05 a.m. after having received the information about the incident to lodge the report. The very fact that he was the person who lodged the first information report at about 2.00 a.m. shows that he was also likely to be present at Varanasi at the time of incident and merely because he resides at Allahabad cannot be a reason not to believe his testimony and to create any doubt about his presence in the house of injured whose sister was married to him. 11. On behalf of the appellant the fact that Mohd. 11. On behalf of the appellant the fact that Mohd. Irshad received the injury and that the incident had taken place in his own residence are the facts which have not been disputed. 12. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no light at the time of incident and, therefore, the injured or the informant could not have seen the accused. For this it has been urged on behalf of the appellant firstly that the first information report does not mention that there was any light on. Reliance was also placed by them at the statement made by the witnesses during investigation. It was stated by both the P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef and P.W.2 Irshad Ahmad that they had put the light on immediately after the injury was caused. This part of statement of the witnesses has been proved by Ext. Kha 1 and Kha 3. 13. During the trial P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef stated that at the time of incident it was not dark. There was light in the street, in the courtyard and a tube light in the room. He denied that he had put the light on after the incident. 14. P.W.2 Irshad Ahmad also denied that there was no light at the time of incident. 15. The statement of these witnesses shows that there was street light. It is also stated that light in the room of injured was also burning. Even if the light in the courtyard had not been put on before the incident, the witnesses could have easily identified the assailant in the light which was burning in the street and in the room of the injured. It is not disputed that the accused was known to both the informant and the injured. The incident took place at about mid-night inside the house of the injured. The accused, therefore, could not have entered the house without the door having been opened as has been stated by the witnesses. In this situation, the fact that the witnesses knew the accused and had identified him before he had opened the door and had also seen him when he attacked are the only inferences which can be drawn in the circumstances. In this situation, the fact that the witnesses knew the accused and had identified him before he had opened the door and had also seen him when he attacked are the only inferences which can be drawn in the circumstances. The manner in which the injury was caused is also such that the injured would necessarily have seen the assailant from a very close distance, he having inflicted knife blow at the abdomen. The mere discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses made before the I.O. about the light in the courtyard having been switched on before or after the incident in the aforesaid circumstances would not in any manner affect the veracity of the testimony of either of the two witnesses about their being able to identify the accused at that time and in these circumstances in whatever light was available at that time. 16. This contention of the accused, therefore, cannot be relied upon to hold that the injured or the witnesses could not have identified the accused. 17. It was also suggested on behalf of the accused that there was some dispute between the injured and his cousin who were living in the first floor in the same house and perhaps crime could have been committed by him. When there are eye witnesses of the incident who have made categorical statement about the person, (namely accused, then merely because there was a dispute between the injured and one of his cousins would not be a reason to ignore all the' direct evidence and on mere conjectures to hold that the crime might have been committed by the person with whom the injured had the dispute. 18. The only other ground on which the testimony of P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef was challenged was that according to him he had taken the injured to the hospital, stayed there for about 1 hours and then gone to the police station to lodge the report while according to the injury report the injured had been taken by Asgar Alam for medical examination. 19. The mere recording by the, doctor that the injured had been brought by Asghar Alam, in absence of any such suggestion made to the doctor who had appeared in the witnesses box, cannot be relied upon to hold that it was only Asghar Alam who had taken the injured to the hospital. 20. 19. The mere recording by the, doctor that the injured had been brought by Asghar Alam, in absence of any such suggestion made to the doctor who had appeared in the witnesses box, cannot be relied upon to hold that it was only Asghar Alam who had taken the injured to the hospital. 20. Again this circumstance is to be context of entire set of facts as given by the witness himself. According to him he and others had taken the injured to the hospital and had stayed there for about one and a half hour before he went to lodge the first information report. The medical examination was conducted by the doctor at 2.00 a.m. while the report was lodged at 2.05 a.m. patently at the time when medical examination was being conducted the informant was not there, having left for the police station to lodge the report. In these circumstances, the report by the doctor that Asghar Alam who appears to be present at that time had brought the injured, is not in consistent with the statement of P.W. 1 Mohd. Haneef that he had also gone with the injured to the hospital. His statement, therefore, does not stand contradicted by the entry made by the doctor in his report while examining the injured. As has been stated earlier it is not disputed that the injured was received by Mohd. Haneef at his residence. The injury report and the statement of the doctor and the statement of other witnesses, clearly show that this injury had been received at about mid-night. between 26 and 27 November, 1978. 21. The aforesaid evidence sufficiently shows that it was the used who had caused that injury. Leaved counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the statement alleged to have been made by the injured before the Doctor Prem Shanker Shukla D.W. 1. 22. This statement differs from the statement made by the witnesses in the court only inasmuch as it says that the accused first went up the stairs and then came down. At that time the injured came to the courtyard and was stabbed by the accused. 23. This statement, on essential facts tallies with the statement made by the witnesses in this court. At that time the injured came to the courtyard and was stabbed by the accused. 23. This statement, on essential facts tallies with the statement made by the witnesses in this court. The only difference about the accused having gone on up stairs first, even if it is found different from the statement of witnesses would not affect the credibility of the statement of these witnesses and would not be such as would discredit the testimony of the witnesses. 24. It is unlikely that the injured would exculpate the real culprit which has been suggested to his own cousin, to falsely implicate the accused, in case the crime was committed by his cousin. Admittedly the accused has a dispute with his cousin also and there is no reason for him to shield him and to implicate the accused falsely. Considering the entire evidence and `circumstances of this case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, finding the accused guilty of having committed the offence. The injury was caused in the abdomen and the nature of the injury and the circumstances show that the accused had intended to-cause the death of the accused having caused that injury with such intention. He clearly was guilty of having committed an offence under section 307, I.P.C. 25. On behalf of the appellant it has also been urged that the sentence awarded to the accused is excessive specially considered the circumstances that the incident had taken place almost 13 years earlier in 1978 and also the fact that only one injury was caused which detracts from the persistent intention of the accused to have seen that death was caused. 26. The injuries do disclose that only one injury was caused. The injury on the hand could be a result of an attempt of the injured to defend himself against the injury which has been caused to him. Considering the nature of the injury and the manner in which it was caused and also the fact that appellant has been facing trial for the last 13 years, it is a fit case where the sentence is reduced to a period of four years. 27. Considering the nature of the injury and the manner in which it was caused and also the fact that appellant has been facing trial for the last 13 years, it is a fit case where the sentence is reduced to a period of four years. 27. As a result, the conviction recorded against the accused is maintained while the sentence awarded to him is modified to the extent that the accused shall stand sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. Subject to this modification, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence.