JUDGMENT : - N. B. Asthana, J. 1. THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.90 passed by the then special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1990 convicting appellant under Sections 324 and 435, I.P.C. and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 as fine for the offence under Section 435, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. CHARGES were framed against the appellant under Sections 307, 324 and 435, I.P.C. The trial Court did not find him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. and acquitted him. He was convicted for other two offences. It is said that in the mid night of 29/30.1.90 he inflicted injuries with a sharp edged weapon upon P. W. 1 Razzak Ali in front of his house in Ajitpura, P.S. Kotwali, Lalitpur and also set fire to his two seater causing a loss of Rs. 10.000 to him. 3. THE prosecution story, in brief, is that about five or six months of the Incident in question Komal Chand, one of the neighbours of the complainant, received a letter asking him to pay Rs. 5,000 and threatening that otherwise his son would be murdered. This latter was sent by the appellant. Komal Chand could not pay this sum of Rs. 5,000 whereupon the appellant went to the house of Komal Chand and again threatened him Komal Chand told about it to the complainant whereupon the complainant and Komal Chand went to Police Station Kotwali and informed the Police about the threat of the appellant. THE police started taking round of the house of the appellant upon which he became annoyed and stated bearing ill will against P.W. 1 Razzak. 4. IN the night of occurrence the appellant armed with his sword went to the house of Komal Chand and kicked the main door of his house in order to get it opened. Komal Chand did not open the (floor whereupon the appellant came to the house of P.W. 1. Razzak and wanted him to open the door. 4. IN the night of occurrence the appellant armed with his sword went to the house of Komal Chand and kicked the main door of his house in order to get it opened. Komal Chand did not open the (floor whereupon the appellant came to the house of P.W. 1. Razzak and wanted him to open the door. P.W. 1 Razzak did not open the door whereupon the appellant went to the house of one Ganja alias Bhagwandas, brought some cloth from his house and set the two seater of P.W. 1 Razzak on fire. IN order to save the two seater P.W. 1 Razzak armed with a lathi came out of the door. The appellant attacked him with the sword, which he was carrying, P.W. 1, Razzak took a turn with the result that the sword damaged his jerkin which he was wearing. He again attacked P.W. 1 Razzak with the result that he received injuries upon his face, hand and fingers. The appellant again attacked him. His sword hit the wall as a result of which it was broken. P.W. 1 Razzak finding opportunity caught hold of him, P.W. 2 Kapoor Chand also came there. These persons tied the appellant with a rope and then P.W. 1, Razzak took down the first information report Ex. Ka-1 of this incident and along with the appellant and the broken pieces of the sword reached P.S. Kotwali, Lalitpur at 1.00 P.M. where this report was handed over to P.W.4 constable Chhavilal. On the basis of Ex. Ka-1 constable Chhavilal prepared chik report Ex. Ka-3 made its entry in the general Diary and registered the case. The broken pieces of sword which were blood stained were also taken into custody at the Police Station, its memo Ex. Ka-6 was prepared. The appellant was put in the lock-up. P.W. 1 Razzak was sent for medical examination. P.W. 3 Dr. S. M. Singh examined him at the District Hospital, Lalitpur on 30.1.90 at 2.15 A.M. He found following injuries upon his person : 1. An incised wound at right side of face 4 cm. x 5 cm. bone deep. Fresh bleeding and gaping were present. Margins were clean cut. Toiling was also present. The injury was 1 cm. upwards from the angle of mouth. 2 An incised wound on right hand dorsal aspect 3 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep. Gaping was present. An incised wound at right side of face 4 cm. x 5 cm. bone deep. Fresh bleeding and gaping were present. Margins were clean cut. Toiling was also present. The injury was 1 cm. upwards from the angle of mouth. 2 An incised wound on right hand dorsal aspect 3 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep. Gaping was present. Margins were clean cut fresh bleeding was present. This injury was 3 cm. below the wrist joint. 3. An incised wound on right middle finger dorsal aspect 1 cm. x .5 cm. muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present Margins were clean cut. 4. An incised superficial wound on right index finger on dorsal aspect 5 cm. x .5 cm. Fresh bleeding was present. 5. An abraded traumatic swelling on right hand dorsal aspect 7 cm. x 9 cm. bright red in colour. 5. INJURIES Nos.1 and 5 were kept under observation, X-ray was advised. Rest of the injuries were simple. INJURIES Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 5 was caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries were fresh. 6. DR. S. M. Singh P.W. 3 in his statement proved the injury report Ex. Ka-2 and gave out that these injuries could have been inflicted in the midnight of 29/30.1.89. Investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 5 S.I. Prabhunath Srivastava. He recorded the statement of witnesses. Visited the scene of occurrence. Prepared the site plan and after completing the investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellant. 7. THE appellant pleaded on guilty and gave out that he had an altercation with one Puttan. P.W. 1 Razzak and P.W. 2 Kapoor Chand intervened in that altercation and inflicted injures numbering about thirty five upon him and in order to save themselves impleaded him falsely in this case. 8. THE prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 Razzak and P.W. 2, Kapoor Chand are witnesses of fact. In their examination in chief they supported the prosecution story. P.W. 3, Dr. S. M. Singh, P.W. 4, constable Chhavilal and P.W. 5 Prabhunath Srivastava are formal witnesses. Parts played by them have already been stated while narrating the prosecution story. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. The trial Court believed the prosecution version of the case convicted and sentenced* the appellant as stated above. P.W. 3, Dr. S. M. Singh, P.W. 4, constable Chhavilal and P.W. 5 Prabhunath Srivastava are formal witnesses. Parts played by them have already been stated while narrating the prosecution story. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. The trial Court believed the prosecution version of the case convicted and sentenced* the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. 9. X-ray examination reports, if any, of P.W. 1 Razzak were not placed on record and, therefore, the trial court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. P.W. 1 Razzak in his cross examination admitted that along with him the accused was sent to the hospital for medical examination and that he had 15 or 20 injuries upon his body. P.W. 2 Kapoor Chand in his statement gave out that the appellant was having 30-40 injuries when he was taken to the police station. None of the witnesses was asked anything in cross-examination to elicit as to how these injuries were caused. It appears that after the appellant was tied up by the two witnesses of fact examined in the case, he was given a sound beating for having burnt the two seator of P.W. 1 Razzak and causing him injuries. Simply from the fact that the appellant was found to have received injuries it cannot be said that the incident took place in the manner as alleged by him. No first information report of the incident alleged by him was lodged. It also does not appear that he tried to put his version of the case to any police authority before he was charge sheeted in the case. No evidence in defence has been adduced although according to P.W. 1 Razzak, Puttan is relation of the appellant. 11. IT was then urged that Komal Chandl should have been examined by the prosecution as a witness. P.W. 5, the investigating officer in his cross examination gave out that he interrogated Komal Chand but he stated that he has no complaint against the appellant and, therefore, he was not made witness in the case. He however gave out that no other witness of the locality was prepared to give evidence as the appellant is a Shatirbadmash and on account of fear nobody was coming forward to depose against him. He however gave out that no other witness of the locality was prepared to give evidence as the appellant is a Shatirbadmash and on account of fear nobody was coming forward to depose against him. In the circumstances it cannot be argued that the prosecution story suffers from any infirmity on account of the fact that Komal Chand was not examined as a witness. 12. IT was then urged that the sword should have been sent for chemical examination in order to find out that it contained human blood. In view of the oral evidence adduced in the case it was not necessary to send the sword for chemical examination. Both the witnesses of fact have clearly stated that the sword was used for inflicting injuries upon P.W. A, Razzak and that it contained human blood. It was then urged that in the sate plan house of the complainant has not been shown. The site plan would indicate that at place 'C entrance of the house of the complainant has been shown in the index and the places where the two seater was set to fire and the complainant was injured have been shown. It cannot be said that the site plan is incomplete. It was then argued that according to the statement of P.W. 1 Razzak, he received injuries also on the fingers of the left hand while according to the injury report no injury was found on the left hand. The original injury report would show that injury No. 5 is on left hand. It was also urged that injury No. 5 has not been caused by a sharp edged weapon. P.W. 1 Razzak was not cross examined on the question as to how he received injury No. 5. It may be that except the edge of the sword other part of the sword touched the left hand of the complainant as a result of which he received this injury. In any case the prosecution story cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that one of the injuries was found to have been caused by the blunt object. In the F.I.R. it is stated that when the sword was broken P.W. 1 Razzak and the appellant grappled and that the appellant threw him on the ground. It may be that injury No. 5 was caused by the fall. In the F.I.R. it is stated that when the sword was broken P.W. 1 Razzak and the appellant grappled and that the appellant threw him on the ground. It may be that injury No. 5 was caused by the fall. It was also urged that in the F.I.R. source of light has not been indicated. In his statement of P.W. 1 Razzak gave out that bulb were kept lighted in front of the house of Komal Chand and Santosh Srivastava. It is also prosecution story that the two seater of (the complainant was set to fire. This would also have generated light. Moreover the appellant was apprehended at the spot. He was known to the witnesses. Had he been able to fled away from the scene of occurrence then it could have been argued that it was, case of mistaken identity but not in the instance case when the appellant was arrested at the spot. The appellant has not disputed his arrest. It was also urged that P.W. 2 Kapoor Chand also plies a taxi and in this taxi he had taken the complainant and the accused to the police station Kotwali. The complainant also plies on hire the two sister seater. There is, however, nothing an the record to indicate that P.W. 2 Kapoor Chand was on inimical terms with the appellant or he had any animus to implicate him falsely. Simply from the fact that he is also a taxi driver it cannot be inferred that he is giving false evidence,, especially when he lives in the same mohalla where the incident is said to have taken place. 13. IT was also urged that P.W. 3 Dr. S. M. Singh in his statement have out that homeguard Virendra Singh had brought the injured while in the injury report Virendra Singh stated to be Head Constable is said to have brought the complainant for medical examination. The original injury report would clearly indicate that Homeguard 2177 Virendra Singh had brought the complainant. 14. I have considered all the arguments advanced in the case and have carefully perused the evidence on record. In my opinion the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. He was rightly convicted. The sentence cannot be said to be severe. The appeal is without any force and is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.