JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—The appellant accused (hereafter referred to as the accused), by this appeal, has assailed the judgment dated 11.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby the accused has been convicted under Sections 452, 307 and 324 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 307 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500 under Section 452 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, two months and one month respectively on each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment, however, have been made to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present appeal are that on the basis of statement Ex. PW-l/A made by Birbal (PW-1), a case under Sections 307, 452 and 324 IPC was registered against the accused at Police Station, Sadar, Mandi vide formal FIR Ex. PW-5/D. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR and as found after investigation, is that PW-1 Birbal had two brothers, namely, Chet Ram and accused Nanak Chand. They have divided their family properties in a family partition and they are residing separately at different places. On the night intervening 10/11.6.1993, PW-1 alongwith his grandson Sunil; aged about 7 years, was sleeping in a room of his house in village Dharwahan (Androl), Tehsil and District, Mandi. At about 12 Oclock in the night, while PW-1 was asleep, he was hit on the chest which led him to wake up and cry. He saw the accused present in the room armed with a Khukhri. He gave a foot blow to the accused whereby he fell down but managed to give another blow with the Khukhri on the leg of PW-1. In the meanwhile, on hearing the cries of PW-1, his sons Chander Mani (PW-2) and Hans Raj who were sleeping in the upper storey of the house came on the spot. His other two sons Devinder and Devi Singh were also sleeping in the upper storey of the house. They also reached the spot though after PW-2 and Hans Raj had already reached there. His other two sons Devinder and Devi Singh were also sleeping in the upper storey of the house. They also reached the spot though after PW-2 and Hans Raj had already reached there. The accused, at that time, was dressed in a womans attire and was about to give another blow with the Khukri to PW-1 but was overpowered by PW-2 and Hans Raj. The accused was also found in possession of one torch. PW-2 and his brother took injured PW-1 to the District Hospital. The police was informed of the arrival of the victim at the District Hospital by the medical officer. PW-5 Dev Raj, head constable, Police Post, Mandi, on receipt of such information, went to District Hospital, Mandi and moved an application, copy whereof is Ex. PW-5/B to get medical opinion whether PW-1 was fit to make a statement. The medical officer certified PW-1 to be fit for making the statement, therefore, PW-5 recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to Police Station for registration of the FIR and as such, FIR Ex. PW-D came to be registered as already stated hereinabove. PW-1 was got medically examined and Dr. Tripta Singh (PW-6) medically examined PWr-l on 11.6.1993. On such medical examination, the following injuries were found on the person of the victim: "(1) Gapping wound over the sternal region in the Central Part 3" x 1". Linear out wound appears to be deep and penetrating edges sharp. Oozing of blood present. Advised X-ray chest APs lateral view. (2) Gapping wound 1 cm. x .03 cm. x 0.4 cm. on the left leg in the frontal side in the middle part. Edges sharp. Slight oozing of blood. Clotted around wound and leg. Nature of injury No. 1 will be given after explanation of wound by surgeon and after observation” Out of these injuries, injury No. 1 was grievous and injury No. 2 was simple and were found to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon. PW-6 accordingly issued MLC Ex. PW-3/A. The investigation of the case was taken over by Jai Chand, ASI (PW 9). , He took in possession from the spot blood stained mattress Ex. P-6, bed sheet Ex. P-7, Khukhri Ex. P-2, torch Ex. P-8 and the blood vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. On production by PW-1, he also took in possession his blood stained shirt vide memo Ex. , He took in possession from the spot blood stained mattress Ex. P-6, bed sheet Ex. P-7, Khukhri Ex. P-2, torch Ex. P-8 and the blood vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. On production by PW-1, he also took in possession his blood stained shirt vide memo Ex. PW-l/B. The woman-attire which the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence, namely, kameej, salwar and dupatta Exs. P-3 to P-5 were also taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. Khukhri Ex. P-2, the blood collected from the spot, shirt Ex. P-l, GilafEx. P-6 and bed sheet Ex. P-7 were sent for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory where it was found that shirt Ex. P-l, Khukhri Ex. P-2, Gilaf Ex. P-6 and chaddar Ex. P-7 were stained with human blood of group "B". The blood collected from the spot was though found to be blood but was insufficient for further analysis as reported vide report Ex. PX. On being satisfied of the commission of the offences by the accused, a charge sheet was accordingly submitted against him. 3. The accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi on a charge under Sections 452, 307 and 324 IPC. 4. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that on the relevant night, he was on duty in the Home Guard at Chail Chowk. After his duty was over, while going to his house, he heard the cries coming from the direction of the house of his brother (PW-1) and he went there to make inquiries. When the reached there, he was caught hold of by Devi Singh, Chander Mani, Hans Raj and Mohinder Singh distance of about 50 feet from the place of occurrence. He had though come to the spot but after having been informed of the incident by Devinder (PW-4). He has stated that he was asleep when at about 12 Oclock in the night PW-4 came to his house and then informed him of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution and established in view of the evidence on the record that the incident took place at about 12 Oclock in the night. He has stated that he was asleep when at about 12 Oclock in the night PW-4 came to his house and then informed him of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution and established in view of the evidence on the record that the incident took place at about 12 Oclock in the night. During such odd hours of night when the people are asleep, they are not expected to hear the cries raised in a room of different house at some distance, Therefore, non arrival of the villagers on the spot at the material time is not an improbable circumstance, which may affect the credibility of the material prosecution witnesses. 10. It has been stated by PW-1 that on being hit in the chest and having felt pain he was awakened and found the accused in his room armed with a Khukhri. He pushed the accused with his leg and raised cries and in the meanwhile accused struck another blow on his leg. It was at this stage that Hans Raj and Chander Mani (PW-2) arrived at the spot and caught hold of the accused. Devi Singh and Devinder Singh (PW-4) also reached there. The sequence of events as given by PW-1 is corroborated by PW-2 and PW-4 in their statements. It is thus evident from the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 that there was hardly any occasion for the accused to make good his escape from the place of occurrence, and his inability to escape cannot be said to be an improbability as contended by the learned Counsel. 11. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there are circumstances from which adverse inferences ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. Elaborating the contention, the learned Counsel contended that (i) a grand-son of PW-1 was sleeping with him but has not been examined by the prosecution (ii) injuries admittedly found on the person of the accused have not been explained, (iii) the apparels found on the person of the accused have not been sent for chemical analysis and (iv) there is no evidence that the case property was kept in safe custody, and from these circumstances, adverse inferences ought to have been drawn against the prosecution and such adverse inferences as are deducible from these circumstances, belie the case of the prosecution. 12. 12. It is admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident, grand-son of the victim was sleeping with him. It is so admitted by PW-1 himself that his grand-son Sunil aged about 7 years was sleeping with him. Said Sunil, however, has not been examined by the prosecution. The investigating officer (PW~9) admits that he had not interrogated the child. In view of the given age of said Sunil and the evidence relied on and produced by the prosecution, it was not obligatory on the prosecution to have produced and examined said Sunil who evidently can be presumed to be incapable of knowing the sanctity of oath. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for his non production. 13. There is no dispute that injuries were found on the person of the accused when he was medically examined after his arrest. In view of the statement of PW-8 who medically examined the accused read with MLC Ex. PW-8/B, five injuries, simple in nature, having been caused with blunt weapon around the time of incident were found on the person of the accused. 14. By now the law is well settled that in a situation when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending upon the circumstances and facts of each case any of the following results may follow : (i) the accused inflicted the injuries on the alleged victim in exercise of the right of self defence, (ii) it renders the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt, and (iii) it does not affect the prosecution case at all. 15. It is thus settled that any of the aforesaid results will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial and incapable of being noticed by the eye witnesses or when the evidence is so clear, cogent, probable, consistent and creditworthy that it far outweighs the effect of omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries, non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused shall not have adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. In other cases, the result may be as at (i) and (ii) above. In other cases, the result may be as at (i) and (ii) above. (See Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 and Kasam Abdulla Hafiz, etc. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1451). 16. In the case in hand, there is no direct and specific explanation of the cause of injuries sustained by the accused. However, as already noticed, the injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature. As per the opinion given by PW-8, such injuries are capable of being caused in a scuffle. It is the case of the prosecution that when Chander Mani (PW-2) and Hans Raj reached at the spot, they caught hold of the accused. It is so stated by PW-1 Birbal the victim, Chander Mani (PW-2) and Devinder Kumar (PW-4). PW-2 Chander Mani has further stated that the accused was tied by him and his brother. with a rope to control him. It is implicit in the act of tieing the accused with a rope to control him that he had struggled to get himself freed to escape and thus a scuffle must have taken place in the process of catching hold of and tieing the accused with the rope. The accused was tied with a rope is a fact not disputed even by the accused, who in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that he was tied with a rope. In view of these facts and circumstances coupled with the cogent, consistent and reliable evidence as I shall be discussing a little later, the failure of the prosecution to lead any direct and specific evidence to explain the injuries found on the person of the accused is not fatal to the case. 17. It is not the case of the prosecution that blood stains were noticed on the clothes, the accused was wearing at the time of the incident. If so, no useful purpose was going to be served by sending such clothes for chemical analysis. Therefore, from non-sending of the wearing apparels of the accused for chemical analysis, no adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn. 18. The contention of the learned Counsel that there is no evidence that the case property of the case remained in safe custody deserves to be upheld. The blood stained shirt of the victim Ex. Therefore, from non-sending of the wearing apparels of the accused for chemical analysis, no adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn. 18. The contention of the learned Counsel that there is no evidence that the case property of the case remained in safe custody deserves to be upheld. The blood stained shirt of the victim Ex. P-1 was taken in possession by the investigating officer (PW-9) on 12.6.1993 vide memo Ex. PW-l/B in the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 and was sealed with seal ‘J’ However, as per the contents of Ex. PW-l/B the seal was not handed over to any witness and it has to be presumed that after sealing Ex. P-l the seal ‘J’ remained in the possession of the investigating officer. 19. The clothes, the accused is stated to be wearing at the time of the incident i.e. shirt Ex. P-3, Salwar Ex. P-4 and Dupatta Ex. P-5 were taken in possession by the same investigating officer on 12.6.1993 vide memo Ex. PW-2/Ain the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and were sealed with seal \J\ It is evident from the contents of Ex. PW-2/A that again this seal was not handed over to any witness and presumably remained in possession of the investigating officer. 20. The blood stained Khukhri Ex. P-2, mattress Ex. P-6, Bed sheet Ex. P-7 and torch Ex. P-8 were taken in possession by the same investigating officer (PW-9) on 11.6.1993 on production by PW-2 in the presence of one Fandi Ram and Prakash Chand (PW-3). These articles were also sealed with seal J and the seal after use was handed over to Fandi Ram. This is not the case of the prosecution that the seal. ‘J’ used to seal the case property on 12.6.1993 was a seal other than the seal J used for sealing the case property on 11.6.1993 which was handed over to Fandi Ram or it was taken from Fandi Ram for sealing the case property taken in possession on 12.6.1993. Said Fandi Ram has not been examined by the prosecution to clarify this aspect of the matter and investigating officer (PW-9) also does not clarify it in his statement. 21. Said Fandi Ram has not been examined by the prosecution to clarify this aspect of the matter and investigating officer (PW-9) also does not clarify it in his statement. 21. There is no evidence to prove as to where the case property remained after it was taken in possession and when and through whom some of the articles allegedly stained with blood were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the case property after having been taken in possession by PW-9 remained in safe custody: 22. Now the question arises as to the effect of want of evidence to prove that the case property after its seizure remained in safe custody, want of explanation as to how seal \J came to be used for sealing the case property on two different days when on the first day it had been handed over to Fandi Ram after use and non production of Fandi Ram and the seal. In my view, these lapses on the part of the investigating officer and the prosecution are not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution as a whole. However, as a result of these lapses, opinion given by the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory vide report Ex. PX is rendered doubtful. The opinion vide report Ex. PX is that on analysis, human blood of group B was found on shirt Ex. P-l, Khukhri Ex. P-2, Gilaf Ex/ P-6 and Chadar Ex. P-7. It is this opinion the benefit whereof has to be denied to the prosecution. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that blood of the victim was of group B\ However, discarding of this evidence ipso facto is not fatal to the prosecution case which has to be decided on merits on the basis of other evidence on record. 23. PW-1 has given the eye account of the occurrence as a whole. He has stated that while asleep he was hit with some weapon on his chest and the pain thereby caused awakened him. He saw the accused present in the room and armed with a Khukhri and was in woman attire. He has further stated that he pushed the accused with his leg and the accused gave him another blow with Khukhri on his left leg on the front side. He saw the accused present in the room and armed with a Khukhri and was in woman attire. He has further stated that he pushed the accused with his leg and the accused gave him another blow with Khukhri on his left leg on the front side. In the meanwhile, on hearing cries his sons PW-2 and Hans Raj came on the spot and caught hold of the accused. He has further stated that he could identify the Khukhri with which he was hit and the clothes the accused was wearing at the time of occurrence. He did identify Khukhri Ex. P-2 as the weapon of offence and the clothes Exs. P-3, P-4 and P-5 as the woman clothes, the accused was dressed with at the time of occurrence. His statement is fully corroborated by PW-2 to the extent that when on hearing the cries of PW-1, he alongwith Hans Raj reached at the spot, the accused armed with Khukhri Ex. P-2 was going to give additional blow to his father but was overpowered by them and was tied with a rope to control him. He has further stated that he produced Khukhri Ex. P-2 to the police. PW-3 Parkash Chand has stated that on being requested by Devinder (PW-4) he had gone to the spot and found the accused there tied with a rope. He has further stated that Khukhri Ex. P-2 was produced before the police by PW-2 and was taken into possession by the police. There is no suggestion to him or PW-2 that Khukhri was not so taken in possession by the police. PW-4 Devinder has also corroborated the version of PW-1 to the extent that when on hearing the cries of PW-1 he reached at the place of occurrence, he found that PW-2 and Hans Raj had caught hold of the accused who was in woman attire and was armed with Khukhri Ex. P-2. It has not been suggested to him that the accused was not so armed. 24. PW-2 and PW-4 are though sons of PW-1 but their statements cannot be disbelieved simply for this reason. There is no proved reason for them to falsely implicate their uncle in a serious offence. There is no dispute that PW-1 had sustained the injuries as already detailed vide para 2 ante. 24. PW-2 and PW-4 are though sons of PW-1 but their statements cannot be disbelieved simply for this reason. There is no proved reason for them to falsely implicate their uncle in a serious offence. There is no dispute that PW-1 had sustained the injuries as already detailed vide para 2 ante. Therefore, there is no proved reason for PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 to let the guilty person go scot free and falsely implicate a near relation. In view of the time and place of occurrence, they are the natural witnesses of the occurrence. 25. The medical evidence lends further corroboration to the statement of PW-1 who has stated about two injuries having been caused to him, one in the chest and another on the front side of his left leg with a Khukhri. On medical examination by PW-8? two gapping wounds one on the chest and another in the front portion of the left leg of PW-1, were found as is evident from MLC Ex. PW-8/A and the statement of PW-8. As per the opinion of PW-6, both these injuries are possible with Khukhri Ex. P-2. She has further opined that injury on the chest was grievous. PW-10 Dr. S.S. Guleria has also opined that injury on the chest was grievous though not dangerous to life. Thus, apart from the opinion vide Ex. PX, there is cogent, consistent and reliable evidence on the record which prove that the accused trespassed in the room wherein PW-1 was sleeping during night and caused grievous as well as simple injuries to him with sharp edged weapon. 26. Be it stated that the accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, has admitted his presence at the scene of occurrence. There is no evidence worth the name to prove that he was forcibly taken there or was forcibly made to wear the lady clothes. 27. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated therein, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the charge against the accused was proved. 28. There is no evidence worth the name to prove that he was forcibly taken there or was forcibly made to wear the lady clothes. 27. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated therein, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the charge against the accused was proved. 28. Lastly the learned Counsel for the accused had contended that in case it is found that the charge against the accused is duly proved, the sentences awarded to him are too severe and disproportionate in view of the fact that he is facing the agony of the litigation for the last more than 7 years and is under suspension, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment deserve to be reduced. 29. The offences were committed by the accused on the night intervening 10th and 11th June, 1993. Charge sheet against him was submitted on 21.10.1993. Copies of charge sheet though were furnished to the accused on 12.4.1994 but copies so supplied were incomplete and complete copies were furnished almost after a year on 30.3.1995. After committal, the case remained pending at the stage of consideration of charge till 8.10.1998, that is, more than three and half years for reasons like absence of Presiding Officer, because of tour, transfer and leave, strikes by Bar and requests for adjournment for consideration of charge, record not revealing in most of the adjournment orders as to who had sought adjournments. The charge was framed on 8.10.1998 and the case was finally disposed of on 11.10.1999 and this period of one year was taken because of the lapse of the prosecution in not citing some material witnesses as such and making repeated applications for summoning such witnesses. Thus, mainly because of lapses on the part of the prosecution, the case remained pending trial for unduly long time, i.e. about 5 years. The appeal also remained pending for about two years. In all, the investigation, trial and appeal took about 7 years to conclude and the accused during all this period had been facing the agony of trial and fear of punishment which is worse than the punishment itself. In these circumstances, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years awarded to the accused under Section 307 IPC is reduced to that of three years. 30. In these circumstances, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years awarded to the accused under Section 307 IPC is reduced to that of three years. 30. As a result, while maintaining the conviction of the accused on all counts and the sentence as awarded to him under Sections 452 and 324 IPC and the sentence of fine as imposed under Section 307 IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 5 years as awarded under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 ^ears. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal accordingly disposed. -