JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J. :---This appeal by the appellant/accused Mohan is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th June, 1994, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Originally, the appellant/accused along with two others viz. Sk. Babrya s/o Sk. Mahboob and Gulabkhan Kismatkhan, were chargesheeted and prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of I.P.C. All the three accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. However, the present appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 326 I.P.C. 2. The facts in brief are as under : On 31-3-1993 at about 10 to 10.30 A.M. the complainant/victim-Kailas Chiranjilal Sharma was sitting near the house of one Thakre in village Dahigaon. The accused came there. The appellant/accused was with Farsa. The appellant/accused asked the accused No. 2 Sk. Babrya whether he should deal with the complainant. Thereafter, the appellant/accused gave Farsa blow. The complainant snatched the Farsa from the hands of the appellant/accused and handed over to accused No. 3 Gulabkhan. Thereafter scuffle ensued between the victim and the appellant. The acquitted accused No. 3 Gulabkhan handed over the Farsa to accused No. 1. In the scuffle, the accused fell on the ground. The accused thereafter dealt blows over both the hands of the complainant which resulted in amputation of both the hands above elbow. Similarly, the blows were delivered on the nose and the back. According to the complainant, the accused assaulted him due to old enmity. At the Police Station, Telhara, Shri Sharma A.P.I. (P.W. 9) received telephonic message from unknown person that the hands and nose of the complainant have been cut. He took down the Sana entry in the Station Diary and along with the staff, he went to village Dahigaon and saw the injured with the amputated hands on the spot. The complainant Kailas was sent with P.S.I. Shri Pawar (P.W. 8) to Municipal Hospital, Telhara. Shri Pawar recorded the statement of the complainant vide Exh. 37 and entrusted the investigation to Shri Sharma A.P.I. (P.W. 9). 3. Shri Bharatbhushan Sharma (P.W. 9)-A.P.I. prepared the spot panchanama Exh. The complainant Kailas was sent with P.S.I. Shri Pawar (P.W. 8) to Municipal Hospital, Telhara. Shri Pawar recorded the statement of the complainant vide Exh. 37 and entrusted the investigation to Shri Sharma A.P.I. (P.W. 9). 3. Shri Bharatbhushan Sharma (P.W. 9)-A.P.I. prepared the spot panchanama Exh. 20 in presence of the panchas. From the spot a chappal, simple earth, blood mixed earth and one bottle and two amputated hands were seized. On the very day, he arrested the accused No. 1. As he had injury, the clothes of accused viz. Baniyan and fullpant were seized in presence of panchas vide Exh. 44. The clothes of injured Kailas viz. Shirt and torn Banian were seized vide Exh. 45. During the investigation, on 3rd April, 1993, in presence of two panchas viz. Gunwant Vithuji Naraje and Wasudeo Harichandra Marke, the appellant/accused made voluntary statement to discover the weapon used in the assault, which he had kept in the inner room of his house. The panchanama was recorded vide Exh. 41 and signed by P.S.I. Shri Pawar and two panchas. The appellant led the Police party and panchas to his house and produced the weapon known as Farsa having sharp and blunt iron blade of 15" in length and 2¾" in width, from the inner room of his house. The iron blade was fitted to a pipe. Faint stains of blood were found on the blade. The weapon Farsa was seized and sealed in presence of the panchas. 4. Injured Kailas was first shifted to Municipal Hospital, Telhara in a jeep. Dr. Ashok Tapadiya (P.W. 1) examined Kailas on 31-3-1993 at 3.45 P.M. and noticed the following injuries: (1) Amputation of both arms above elbow with crushed injury. No fresh bleeding. Injuries were grievous. (2) Lacerated wound crushed injury over nose. (3) Incised wounds two in number. One is 5" x 4" respectively, horizontal over right scapular caused by sharp weapon. Doctor found crushed injuries. It was opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Dr. Annapurna (P.W. 2) examined injured Kailas in the Main Hospital on 31-3-1993 at about 5.45 P.M. and the amputated arms. On examination she concluded that the amputated arms are the parts of the body of Kailash and accordingly she issued certificate Exh. 35 on 10-4-1993. In the cross-examination Dr. Dr. Annapurna (P.W. 2) examined injured Kailas in the Main Hospital on 31-3-1993 at about 5.45 P.M. and the amputated arms. On examination she concluded that the amputated arms are the parts of the body of Kailash and accordingly she issued certificate Exh. 35 on 10-4-1993. In the cross-examination Dr. Ashok Tapadiya denied the suggestion that the amputation of hands were not caused by sharp object. According to doctor, as stated in the cross-examination itself, amputation of limbs is not possible in standing position, unless there is hard substance below the hand and unless limb is rested over hard object. If a person is sleeping on hard floor, the amputation of limbs is possible if blows are given by heavy object. Further he stated that in case of amputation, death may occur due to profused bleeding or haemorrhage but not due to the injuries. 5. The incriminating articles seized during the investigation i.e. Farsa, the clothes of victim Kailash and the clothes of the appellant and other accused with the blood phial of all the three accused were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination and report. Exh. 31 dated 3-1-1994 is the report of the Chemical Analyser. As per the report of the Chemical Analyser, shirt and torn baniyan of accused, Farsa-Article No. 3 (Courts Article No. 5) and the baniyan and fullpant of the appellant/accused were found stained with human blood. The clothes of the complainant and the Article 9 - baniyan of the appellant were found stained with blood of group A. 6. The appellant and other accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the defence, accused stated that the complainant had many enemies in the village. They are not the authors of the alleged commission of offence. They have been falsely roped by the complainant being on the inimical terms. The complainant is the habitual offender. 7. The learned trial Judge, after scrutinizing the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused No. 1 i.e. the present appellant under section 326 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. 8. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that except the evidence of victim Kailash, there is no corroboration whatsoever and even the evidence of victim is full of inconsistency and contradictions. 8. Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that except the evidence of victim Kailash, there is no corroboration whatsoever and even the evidence of victim is full of inconsistency and contradictions. Thus, according to him, the learned trial Judge has committed an error in believing his evidence. At the outset, he submitted that the most important aspect in this case is that though the appellant/accused received an injury, it has neither been explained by the victim Kailash, nor any other witness of the prosecution. This evidence has greater importance and particularly in this case where the evidence is inconsistent and that too by the person who is on inimical terms with the appellant/accused. A reliance has been placed on the case of (Jagtar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab)1, 1984(1) Crimes 390. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case before his Lordship, it was observed : "In a case of rival versions, where both parties suffered injuries in the same occurrence and it seems that there is suppression of truth regarding origin and genesis of occurrence by the complainants party, then it is not safe to maintain the conviction of accused under section 326, 326/34 Indian Penal Code on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses." With the assistance of Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, I perused the entire evidence on record. In the evidence it is not suggested at all that in the same occurrence, the appellant/accused also received any injury. No doubt, on 1st April, 1993, at about 9.50 A.M., the appellant/accused was examined by Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Telhara, who found lacerated wound with crushed abrasions linior irregular 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. on lower part of right arm plexor side. According to the doctor, it is simple injury which could have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. Though Dr. Tapadiya (P.W. 1) was examined by the prosecution, the appellant has not suggested that in the incident as stated by the victim Kailash, the injury which was found subsequently on the person of appellant/accused, could be sustained. It needs mention that the non-explanation of the injury on the person of the accused is the factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. It needs mention that the non-explanation of the injury on the person of the accused is the factor which is to be taken into account in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. However, no obligation is cast on the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all the cases. The obligation to be discharged in two types of cases : (1) if very serious or severe injury is received by the accused and not superficial; and (2) the injury must have been caused at the time of occurrence in question. These aspects have been dealt by the Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of (Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan)2, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1010. In the instant case, the appellant/accused had denied the incident and further took a defence that out of enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case. As such it is not the case of the appellant that he has received the injury in the same occurrence. On the contrary, his defence is that he has no nexus with the amputation of the arms of the victim Kailash. Under these circumstances, it was not obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injury on the person of the appellant/accused. Thus, there is no substance in the submission of Shri Daga and, therefore, the same is rejected. 9. Shri Daga further vehemently argued that the victim Kailash had many enemies in the village and, therefore, he might have been assaulted by any other enemy. The appellant/accused had an old enmity with the victim which has been admitted by the victim Kailash in his report Exh. 37 and, therefore, accordingly the learned Counsel, the accused is falsely implicated in this case. As per report Exh. 37, one Vijay Mahadeo Dharmkar and wife of Jagdeo Thakre by name Sumanbai witnessed the incident. However, they did not support the case of victim Kailash. In the cross-examination of Kailash, it was suggested that while he was sleeping on the Ota of Thakre in the night after intoxicated by consuming Rum, he was assaulted and, therefore, he had no knowledge as to who assaulted him and how. The case is not as simple as suggested by the defence. Both the hands of victim Kailash were amputated. As also he has incised injury on the nose. The case is not as simple as suggested by the defence. Both the hands of victim Kailash were amputated. As also he has incised injury on the nose. It is impossible to digest that in the sleep such injuries were caused and the victim has no knowledge as to who caused the same and how. It is also difficult to digest that on being so brutaly assaulted, the victim would not wake up and would not either try to save himself or run away from the place of incident and thus, would not be in a position to identify the assailent. The victim Kailash very specifically deposed that the incident took place at about 10.30 A.M. P.S.O. P.S. Telhara, received the phone message at about 2 P.M. that two hands of victim Kailash were amputated. Immediately, Shri Sharma, A.P.I. (P.W. 9) along with the staff, proceeded to the village Dahigaon and saw the injured with amputated hands on the spot. The injured was immediately sent to P.H.C. Telhara with P.S.I. Pawar. The statement of injured Kailash was recorded and on the basis of the same, the offence was registered at 3.30 P.M. 10. Doctor examined and also certified that the amputated hands were of victim Kailash. Kailash being the injured witness whose both the hands were amputated and also incised wound was caused to his nose, his evidence is entitled to great weight. There is an inbuilt guarantee to his testimony. His evidence convincingly establishes that the appellant/accused committed the crime resulting in the amputation of his hands and injury to his nose. There is no reason to doubt or disbelieve his testimony on the minor and insignificant contradictions, even though the other witnesses did not support the prosecution story. It needs mention that an injured person, in the instant case Kailash whose both the hands have been amputated, would not easily substitute a wrong person for his actual assault unless it has been shown that there was a motive for such substitution. In this case, it has not been shown to me that there was motive for such substitution. In the case of (Malkhan Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh)3, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 12, injured Jai Narain Sharma (P.W. 1) had deposed that when he was shot at in his back, he looked behind and saw Munshi Lal holding a pistol in his hand. In the case of (Malkhan Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh)3, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 12, injured Jai Narain Sharma (P.W. 1) had deposed that when he was shot at in his back, he looked behind and saw Munshi Lal holding a pistol in his hand. On the basis of this, the Lordships of the Supreme Court observed : ".....we find no particular reason as to why Jai Narain should falsely depose against Munshi Lal. it is difficult to believe that an injured person would spare his real assailant and falsely involve another person as one responsible for causing him injury. The fact that Munshi Lal was seen holding a pistol in his hand by Jai Narain immediately after being shot at goes to show that it was Munshi Lal who had fired the shot at Jai Narain." Farsa (Article 5) was recovered on the memorandum Exh. 41 and seized under Exh. 42-seizure memo. As per Chemical Analysers report Exh. 31, on Farsa, shirt torn baniyan of victim Kailash as also on the clothes of accused viz. baniyan and fullpant, human blood was found. The blood of victim Kailash is of group A. Similarly, the blood found on Article 9 Baniyan was also of group A. Though accused stated in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., while replying to question No. 8, that the blood stains found on the baniyan (Article 9) is of his blood. Exh. 24-injury certificate shows that the accused had simple injury. It was not a bleeding injury. As such there is no proper explanation as to how and under what circumstances his baniyan got stained with his own blood. In view of the discussion above, there being a volumneous, reliable, cogent and unimpeachable evidence of victim Kailash corroborated by the Medical evidence, seizure of Farsa on Memorandum, the C.A. report in respect of clothes of the victim and accused, and also no circumstance has been brought on record to discard the testimony of Kailash, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant/accused and no interference is required by this Court. 12. Lastly, Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the appellant/accused is a young boy and the alleged incident might have taken place in the heat of passion, the sentence awarded by the lower Court being too harsh, a lenient view be taken. 12. Lastly, Shri Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the appellant/accused is a young boy and the alleged incident might have taken place in the heat of passion, the sentence awarded by the lower Court being too harsh, a lenient view be taken. The instant case is a serious one. No circumstance has been shown to say that the appellant accused got enraged and in the heat of passion, he assaulted victim Kailash amputating his both the hands. Victim Kailash has become disable permanently. In fact, according to me, the learned trial Judge has shown leniency while awarding sentence of five years only, without assigning any reason. In my opinion, the appellant/accused deserves a maximum sentence. The submissions made by Shri Daga are, therefore, rejected being devoid of substance. 13. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1994 on 17-6-1994, is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed. *****