JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---The appellants aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1989, convicting and sentencing them to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months, have come up in appeal before me. 2.The prosecution case in short runs as under :--- Appellant Choklet Pawar is the father of appellants Suresh Pawar and Meetar Pawar. The victim Entivan Bhosale, P.W. 2 was sister's son of Choklet Pawar. There was enmity between the victim and the appellants because the former had refused to marry the daughter of the appellant Choklet Pawar about 1½ years prior to the incident. Relations between them were also strained because before the incident, the victim was prosecuted for offences of theft, dacoity under the Bombay Police Act and he had a feeling that the appellants were giving information to the police against him. On 31st January, 1989 at about 10 a.m., while the victim was in his house, the appellants came in a rickshaw and asked him to accompany them to see a film in Natraj theatre. The victim sat alongwith them in the rickshaw and after they crossed the Mhatre bridge, the appellants started inflicting fist blows on him. The victim thereupon ran to the river side. The appellants chased him and appellant Choklet Pawar is alleged to have been inflicted a Knife blow on his back. The victim fell down, as a result thereof, and the clothes he was putting on, got stained with blood. About half an hour later, the police came on the place of the incident and took him to Sassoon Hospital in a rickshaw. 3.The injuries of the victim Entivan Bhosale were medically examined in the Sassoon Hospital, Pune by Dr. Anupama Date, P.W. 1 the same day at about 12.00 noon. She found on his person a Contused Lacerated Wound of the dimensions of 4 cm. x 1 cm. on the right side of the back of thoracic region. Dr. Date stated that the said injury was dangerous to life and most probably, there was an intrathoracic connection. In her opinion, the said injury could be caused by knife (Article 6 shown to her). x 1 cm. on the right side of the back of thoracic region. Dr. Date stated that the said injury was dangerous to life and most probably, there was an intrathoracic connection. In her opinion, the said injury could be caused by knife (Article 6 shown to her). 4.The F.I.R. of the victim was recorded by P.S.I. Ganpat Nikam, P.W. 5 on the dictation of the victim in Sassoon Hospital, Pune on the same day at 2.30 p.m. The F.I.R. is at Exhibit 17. Its perusal shows that there is an endorsement on it of Dr. Anupama Date to the effect that the victim was in a fit condition to make it and it was recorded in her presence. 5.Investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.S.I. Nikam. During the course of it, on pointing out of appellant Suresh Pawar, a knife was recovered but since the recovery was from an open place and the public panch Chandrashekhar Nimbalkar, P.W. 3 who was examined to prove it, stated that till the time of giving evidence, he had acted as a panch on 8 to 9 occasions and the other public panch Namdeo had also acted as a panch with him I am not inclined to believe it. After completing the investigation, P.S.I. Nikam chargesheeted the appellants. 6.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial Court, the appellants were charged for an offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. The appellant Choklet Pawar, in the alternative, was charged for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. To the charges, the appellants pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Out of them, the victim Entiwan Bhosale was an eye witness. In defence, no witness was examined. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinabove. 7.The short point in this appeal is whether the statement of the solitary eye witness Entiwan Bhosale, P.W. 2 inspires confidence against all the appellants. The statement has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the fact that he is an inimical witness who bore grudge against the appellants. Details of the enmity have been furnished by me in para 2. The statement has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the fact that he is an inimical witness who bore grudge against the appellants. Details of the enmity have been furnished by me in para 2. That enmity may have been the reason for the appellants to assault him and may also be the cause for their false implication. In such a situation, the safe rule would be to measure his truthfulness on the anvil of medical evidence. Applying the said rule. I find that his statement that the appellant Choklet Pawar assaulted him with a knife on his back inspires confidence because the medical evidence shows that he had sustained an injury attributable to knife on his back. On the other hand, on the touch stone of the said rule, it may perhaps not be very prudent to accept the participation of the appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meetar Cholket Pawar in the incident. In the F.I.R. and in the statement in the trial Court, victim Entiwan Bhosale stated that the appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meetar Choklet Pawar inflicted fist blows on his person. It is significant to point out that no injuries attributable to fist blows were found on his person by Dr. Date. It is often seen that the role of catching hold of victim, which has been assigned to appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meetar Choklet Pawar, is given by witnesses to inflate the number of accused persons in a case. Since these two appellants were the sons of appellant Choklet Pawar and there was enmity between them and the victim, there is an equal possibility of their being falsely implicated by the victim who gave them the role of catching hold of him while Choklet Pawar was assaulting him with a knife. At any rate, in my view, it will not be very safe to sustain their conviction on the solitary testimony of the victim. It is appropriate that benefit of doubt should be given to them. At any rate, in my view, it will not be very safe to sustain their conviction on the solitary testimony of the victim. It is appropriate that benefit of doubt should be given to them. 8.Since I have given the benefit of doubt to appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meetar Choklet Pawar the conviction of the appellant Choklet Kenthya Pawar has to be converted from one under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. to that under section 307 I.P.C. Since the said appellant has been charged under section 307 I.P.C. simpliciter and the evidence discloses that it was he who gave a blow with knife on the back of the victim, no prejudice will be caused to him by the said conversion. 9.The sole question which remains is that of sentence to be awarded to appellant Choklet Pawar. Mr. S.V. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the appellants urged that since the incident had taken place nerely 8.½ years ago and a solitary knife blow was given to the victim, who was a close relation of the said appellant, the ends of justice will be squarely satisfied if the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and a substantial fine which should be directed to be paid as compensation to the victim be imposed on the said appellant. I regret that I cannot accede to the said contention. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Date shows that a serious injury with knife was inflicted by the appellant on the back of the victim. That injury in the opinion of Dr. Date was dangerous to life. In fact, Dr. Date went to the extent of stating that if the victim was brought half an hour later, there was less chance of his survival. After balancing the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that a sentence of three years R.I. coupled with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and two years R.I. in default would meet the ends of justice. 10.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. I give the benefit of doubt to the appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meeter Choklet Pawar and acquit them for the offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. In case they have paid the fine, it shall stand refunded to them. 10.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. I give the benefit of doubt to the appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meeter Choklet Pawar and acquit them for the offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. In case they have paid the fine, it shall stand refunded to them. I convert the conviction of the appellant Choklet Kenthya Pawar from 307 read with 34 I.P.C. to one under section 307 I.P.C. I substitute his sentence for the offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. by imposing on him a sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 2 years R.I. in default for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. The said fine would be deposited by the appellant Choklet Kenthya Pawar in the trial Court. In case he deposits it, the trial Court shall pay whole of it as compensation to the victim Entivan Kokajya Bhosale, P.W. 2 and in case he is not alive, to his legal heirs. Appellant Choklet Kenthya Pawar is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. In case he has paid the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. the same shall stand refunded to him. The appellants Suresh Choklet Pawar and Meetar Choklet Pawar are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and their sureties discharged. In case, a certified copy of this judgment is applied for by the learned Counsel for the parties, it shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeals partly allowed.