JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J. - Since both these matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common judgment we are disposing them off by one judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1985 has been preferred by the appellant, Shrikisan Zumbarlal Boob against the judgment and order dated 17th January 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1984, convicting and sentencing him to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/ - in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. While admitting Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1985 a learned Single Judge of this court was pleased to suo motu issue a notice to the appellant to show cause as to why his sentence be not enhanced. Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 1985 arises out of the said notice. 2. In short the prosecution case runs as under: The appellant is the uncle of the victim Kamalkishore Ramvilas Boob, P.W. 6. On 27th December 1985 the victim who was aged about 11 to 12 years, along with his sister Priti and his mother had come to the premises of the appellant situated at 669. Deccan Gymkhana. Pune. In the said premises the appellant and Eshwar Shankar Kanse P.W. 1 were living as tenants. At about 1.30 p.m. Eshwar Kanse P.W. 1 who was doing plastering work in a portion of the said premises went to the terrace to store sand, lime etc. At that time he noticed the appellant trying to pull the victim Kamal Kishore who was resisting. The appellant ultimately caught hold of him and threw him on the ground, which was 30-35 feet below the terrace. He appeared to be in an angry mood and went back to his premises after throwing Kamal Kishore. Eshwar Kanse rushed to save Kamal Kishore and on the way met the appellant's wife and told her to accompany him to sale the victim. When he came he noticed that many persons had assembled near the victim. Apart from Eshwar Kanse and the victim this incident was witnessed by Hirabai Sadashiv Gavade P.W. 3, who was residing in a building situated at a distance of only 3 to 4 feet from the place of the incident. When he came he noticed that many persons had assembled near the victim. Apart from Eshwar Kanse and the victim this incident was witnessed by Hirabai Sadashiv Gavade P.W. 3, who was residing in a building situated at a distance of only 3 to 4 feet from the place of the incident. The evidence of Eshwar Kanse is that at that time he heard the noise of weeping of a girl of tender age coming from one of the shops, which was closed and situated in the same premises. He opened the lock of the shop and found Priti in it. 3. The victim Kamal and Priti were taken to the hospital and Eshwar Kanse proceeded to Deccan Gymkhana Police Station, where he lodged the FIR. Exhibit 10, the same day at 2 p.m. The FIR was recorded by P.S.I. Bhaskarrao Shinde P.W. 8. 4. The injuries of victim Kamalkishore and Priti were medically examined the same day at Sassoon Hospital, Pune at 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. respectively. On the person of Kamalkishore Dr. Sanjiv Maruti Hegde, P.W. 4, found the following injuries: right parieto occipital hematoma, 10 cms; x 10 cms. Left parieto occipital hematoma 15 cms. x 10 cms. Abrasions linear 3 cms. Long right little toe. C.L.W. lateral aspect of left foot near the head 5 cms. x 1 cm. Dr. Hegde found Kamalkishore to be unconscious and in his deposition stated that could be due to concussion of the brain, which meant vibration of brain, which could be caused on account of fall. Priti was medically examined by Dr. Ravindra Bapurao Kute, P.W. 5, who found on her person three abrasions and bleeding through right incisor. He opined that the said injuries could be caused by fall. As the condition of Kamalkishore was serious it was decided to get him, discharged from Sassoon Hospital on the next day i.e. on 28-12-1993, and get him admitted in Ruby Hall where Dr. Nitin Anant Deshpande. P.W. 7 medically examined him. He found him to be unconscious. During investigation xrays were taken and a long fracture on anterior parietal region was detected. Later it was also detected that he had intra cerebral clot on the tempro-parietal regior. In the opinion of Dr. Deshpande the said injuries were probably caused by a fall and were possible if the victim was thrown from a height to 40 feet and above. Later it was also detected that he had intra cerebral clot on the tempro-parietal regior. In the opinion of Dr. Deshpande the said injuries were probably caused by a fall and were possible if the victim was thrown from a height to 40 feet and above. Dr. Deshpande also found that the external injuries on the parietal region corresponded to the fracture and clot. 5. After the usual investigation the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the appellant was charged for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial in all the prosecution examine eight witnesses. Three of them viz. Eshwar Kanse P.W. 1, Hirabai Gavade P.W. 3, and Kamalkishore Boob P.W. 6 (the victim), were examined as eye-witnesses. In defence Kasturi Ramvilas Boob, the mother of the victim, was examined as D.W. 1 to show that from about 7 to 8 years prior to the incident the appellant was behaving in an abnormal manner. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found him guilty for an offence under section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the deposition of the witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved, by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C, and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter we 'are of the judgment that both these matters deserve to be dismissed. 7. We find that the conviction of the appellant is based on trustworthy ocular account. It is true that out of the three eye-witnesses of the incident victim Kamalkishore turned hostile. This was understandable because the appellant was his uncle. It is common knowledge that when one is called upon to depose against such a close relation then the principle that blood is dearer than truth operates. Even after excluding the evidence of Kamalkishore we have the implicitly reliable evidence of Eshwar Kanse P.W.  1 and Hirabai P.W. 3, which is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Eshwar Kanse was a tenant in the same premises wherein the appellant was also a tenant. At the time of the incident he was engaged in the plastering work and had gone to the terrace to store sand and lime etc. Eshwar Kanse was a tenant in the same premises wherein the appellant was also a tenant. At the time of the incident he was engaged in the plastering work and had gone to the terrace to store sand and lime etc. At that time he saw the appellant trying to catch hold of the victim and the latter was trying to extricate himself from his clutches. Ultimately he overpowered him and threw him on the ground, which was 30-35 feet below the terrace. Hirabai P.W. 3 lived at a distance of just 3 to 4 feet from the place of the incident. Her evidence is that she heard the cries of "Mala Vachava" (save me) and on hearing them she noticed the appellant throwing the boy on the ground. 8. We have gone through the evidence of both Eshwar Kanse and Hirabai Gavade and found it to be creditworthy. Both of them were natural witnesses of the incident. Their ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence. Both Dr. Hegde and Dr. Nitin Deshpande stated in no uncertain terms that the injuries of the victim Kamal Kishore were attributable to his being thrown on the ground. When his injuries are examined their bare perusal shows that the opinion of the doctors is perfectly plausible. It should be borne in mind that both the eye-witnesses are wholly independent witnesses and had no axe to grind against the appellant. In our view, unless the appellant committed the crime in the manner spelt out by them, they would not have falsely implicated him. 9. Apart from the medical evidence enormous assurance is lent to the prosecution case by the circumstance that Eshwar Kanse lodged the FIR of the incident within half an hour its taking place. It is significant to point out that the appellant is named in it and the prosecution case as unfolded by the eye- witnesses is contained in it. 10. For the, said reasons in our view the learned trial judge acted correctly in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. 11. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions before us, which we now propose to consider. He firstly urged that the evidence of Dr. 10. For the, said reasons in our view the learned trial judge acted correctly in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. 11. Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions before us, which we now propose to consider. He firstly urged that the evidence of Dr. Nitin Deshpande P.W. 7 shows that the victim Kamalkishore was reported to be a case of accidental fall and this statement of his belies the account of the incident as furnished by the eyewitnesses and their claim of having seen the incident. We regret that we do not find any merit in this submission. It is not clear from the medical case papers and the evidence on record as to who got the victim admitted in Ruby Hall wherein Dr. Deshpande medically examined him. It may be that someone who was unaware about the manner in which the victim was assaulted brought him to Ruby Hall and in over-zealousness told the doctor that the victim had received injuries through an accident fall. At any rate, in our judgment, the credible testimony of the two independent eye-witnesses which is corroborated by medical evidence and a prompt FIR cannot be rejected merely on this circumstance. Secondly Mr. Bhosale urged that inasmuch as the victim and the appellant were uncle and nephew, inter se, and the evidence of the mother of the victim who has been examined as D.W. 1 shows that the appellant was behaving in an abnormal manner since about 5 to 7 years prior to the incident, the sentence awarded to the appellant warrants to be reduced. In this connection Mr. Bhosale also invited our attention to the compromise filed by the parties in the trial court, which shows that they were living co-ordially and had overcome the bitterness resulting from this incident. In our view, since the offence under section 307 I.P.C. is non-compoundable the factum of compromise would have only been relevant in taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence. We feel that the learned trial judge has been more than lenient in awarding the sentence to the appellant. He has only awarded him a nominal sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2500/- and 3 months R.I. in default. What more leniency could the appellant have asked for. We feel that the learned trial judge has been more than lenient in awarding the sentence to the appellant. He has only awarded him a nominal sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2500/- and 3 months R.I. in default. What more leniency could the appellant have asked for. It should not be forgotten that the victim had sustained fracture on the parietal region and a blood clot, which in the opinion of Dr. Deshpande, if not treated promptly would have proved fatal. In our view but for the compromise he should have atleast been awarded 7 years R.I. We feel that considering the manner in which the victim was injured and the injuries caused to him by the appellant, he deserves no further leniency. 12. This brings us to Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 1985. The question of sentence as the Apex Court observed is a question of discretion of the court and it is only where the said discretion has been Capriciously exercised and the sentence awarded is grossly inadequate would the appellate court be justified in enhancing it. (See Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh1). Judged from this perspective the sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be castigated as being grossly inadequate and does not warrant enhancement. 13. In the result: Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1985 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Shrikisan Zumbarlal Boob for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. is confirmed. He is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Criminal Revision Application No. 79 of 1985 is dismissed and the notice issued to the appellant for enhancement of his sentence is discharged. In case an application is made for a certified copy of this judgment the same shall be issued within a period of 4 weeks from today. Appeal and Revision dismissed. 1. A.I.R. 1955 S.C. page 778.