JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 326 I.RC. and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to further undergo six months' R.l. 2. The prosecution case is that on 8.11.1980 at about 8 PM, RW. 1 Kamal Kishore lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station, Nohar, stating that at about 7.30 PM, his neighbour accused Jasbendra Singh slapped Vinod Kumar son of Heeralal. RW. 2 Heeralal v/ent to the house of accused Jasbendra Singh with a view to reprimand him. An oral altercation took place between them. The informant Kamal Kishore went to the house of accused with a view to intervene. However, accused Jasbendra Singh brought a 'Kulhari' from the house and inflicted an injury on the left hand of Heeralal on account of which he fell down. The accused thereafter gave a kulhari blow on his head. PW. 5 Amarchand and other persons arrived on the spot. On their intervention, he could be saved. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.RC. The accused appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and produced number of witnesses. The learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty for causing grievous hurt by sharp edged weapon and, as such, convicted him for the offence under Section 326 I.RC. and sentenced him as stated above. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case is fabricated, which is evident from the fact that RW. 1 Kamal Kishore has admitted in the cross elimination that he had signed on the blank papers. Learned counsel has also pointed out some contradictions in the statements. 4. I have perused the record. PW. 1 Kamal Kishore has stated that some quarrel had taken place between Heerala and Jasbendra Singh for the reason that accused had slapped the son of Heeralal. He went to the house of accused Jasbendra Singh to pacify them. However, the accused, instead of being calm down, went inside the house and brought a 'Kulhari'. PW. 1 Kamal Kishore has stated that some quarrel had taken place between Heerala and Jasbendra Singh for the reason that accused had slapped the son of Heeralal. He went to the house of accused Jasbendra Singh to pacify them. However, the accused, instead of being calm down, went inside the house and brought a 'Kulhari'. He inflicted a 'kulhari' blow on the left hand of Heeralal. He also gave 'kulhari' blow on his head. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the hospital, he was in unconscious condition and, as such, the police was not in a position to record his statement. However, he was asked to sign on the blank paper, which he did. RW. 2 Heeralal has stated almost on the same line. There is a lengthy cross examination of both the witnesses. Nothing can be elicited on the basis of which the testimony of these two witnesses could be disbelieved. RW. 5 Amarchand has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. RW. 6 Dr. Sushila Chaudhary has stated that on 16.8.1980, she was posted as Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Nohar. On the said date, Dr. M.C. Pooniya was Medical Officer Incharge, whom she knew. She also sated that Dr. Pooniya had gone to Libia. She also identified the signatures 'A to B' of Dr. Pooniya on injury report Ex.R 6 Ex.P. 7, Ex.P. 8, Ex.R 9 and Ex.P. 10. She also stated that injuries on the person of Heeralal and Kamal Kishore could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like 'kulhari' (Art. 2). It is evident from Ex.R 6 that RW. 1 Kamal Kishore sustained an incised wound of the size of 4"x 1/4" x bone deep on left side of centre of scalp, which was grievous caaused by sharp edged weapon. As per the x-ray report (Ex.R 7), there is a fracture of left parietal bone of skull. 5. The injuries on the person of Heeralal have been proved Ex.R 10. He sustained the following injuries : "1. Incised wound1/2"x 1/2"xbone deep on right forearm post side in middle ⅓; 2. Legated wound 1"x 1/4"x 1/4" on right side of scalp just above right ear; 3. Bruise 2"x 3/4" on left side of chest on lateral side in axillary line at 8th-9th rib level." 6. Injury No. 1 is on the skull caused by sharp edged weapon. Incised wound1/2"x 1/2"xbone deep on right forearm post side in middle ⅓; 2. Legated wound 1"x 1/4"x 1/4" on right side of scalp just above right ear; 3. Bruise 2"x 3/4" on left side of chest on lateral side in axillary line at 8th-9th rib level." 6. Injury No. 1 is on the skull caused by sharp edged weapon. Vide Ex.R 11, x-ray report is proved that there is fracture both right forearm bones. 7. Thus, it is evident from the medical evidence that Kamal Kishore, RW. 1 has sustained injury by a sharp edged weapon. Beside, the injury is grievous in nature on the vital part of the body. Similary, P.W. 2 Heeralal has sustained grievous injury by a sharp edged weapon. Thus, the statements of P.W. 1 and RW. 2 are corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused appellant caused grievous injury by sharp edged weapon to P.W. 1 Kamal Kishore and RW. 2 Heera Lat. Simply because the police is said to have obtained the signatures on the blank papers, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved. The learned Judge has rightly convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 326 I.RC. 8. The incident is of 1980 i.e., about 19 years back. The injured and the accused are said to be neighbours. The incident took placed on the spur of the moment. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from three years to one year. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the modification on the point of sentence to the extent that it is reduced from three years to one year. It is also directed that the appellant shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2500/- to each of the injured i.e., RW. 1 Kamal Kishore and PW. 2 Heeralal. The accused will deposit a sum of Rs. five thousand before the Triai Court Four months' time is granted for depositing the amount. In case, the said amount is not deposited, the order reducing the sentence shall stand vacated and the accused will undergo the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. 1 Kamal Kishore and PW. 2 Heeralal. The accused will deposit a sum of Rs. five thousand before the Triai Court Four months' time is granted for depositing the amount. In case, the said amount is not deposited, the order reducing the sentence shall stand vacated and the accused will undergo the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. The C.J.M., Hanumangarh, is directed to ensure that the appellant undergoes the remaining part of sentence.Appeal dismissed with modifications. *******