Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant suffered conviction under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on being tried by Shri Paras Nath, 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1990 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and five years, respectively on these counts. 2. The prosecution was launched against the appellant on behest of Jagdish Kamat (P.W. 1) with accusation that on 7th August, 1989, in the early hours of morning, while he was washing his hands at a hand pump, installed beside his house, and was drawing water from the said hand pump for his son, the appellant came and dealt blows on his neck with farsa causing bleeding injury on his person and in quick succession the other blow was given on right arm as a consequence of which it was completely chopped of. After receipt of information about the incident, the Police Officer rushed to the place of occurrence, recorded fardbeyan of Jagdish Kamat, on strength of which, first information report was drawn up at Balua Bazar Police Station. The investigating commenced, during which the Police Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, including the injured, his family members, the Police Officer and also claimed to have seized some incriminating object from the house of Lallu Kamat, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. 3. In course of trial, the State examined altogether eight witnesses which include the injured, the family members, the doctor and the Police Officer and the trial court on analysis of the testimony of witnesses, who were found to be credible, negativing the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant about his innocence, rendered verdict of guilt finding the appellant guilty under sections 307 and 326 IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 4. 4. The contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant to question the propriety of the findings recorded by the court below was that though some sort of motive about the land dispute with the appellant was sought to be assigned at the stage of trial, by none else but Jagdish Kamat, such narrations were conspicuously wanting in the early version which he rendered before the Police and it is urged that as a corollary of this, the bona fide and credibility of the entire prosecution has to be thrown over board. Yet, it is urged that though not only the witnesses but even the Police Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, had been stating before the Court about the presence of blood at the place of occurrence, there was no evidence of collection of blood stained soil and its eventual chemical examination by an expert. Though a farsa, an instrument with which Jagdish Kamat allegedly suffered injury at the hands of the appellant, is shown to have been seized from Dallu Kamat by the Police Officer but there was no positive and credible evidence to persuade the Court to believe that if at all any incriminating object was seized with blood mark, the same was human blood. The other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that though Bhagmatia Devi (P.W. 2) narrated to have taken recourse to public authority shortly after the incident which is also corroborated from the narration made by the Police Officer, that being the early version of the State, had been deliberately suppressed and what is being sought to be levelled as the fardbeyan was not the early version and lastly, it is urged that as the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1989 and he suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about 13 years and also that he suffered custody for more than two years, this mitigating circumstance also deserves to be taken into account while awarding sentence to him, if the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court was upheld by the Court. Learned counsel for the State would resist the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant and it is urged that the witnesses examined by the State were considered to be credible by the trial court and the finding recorded by the trial court did not merit interference. 5. Learned counsel for the State would resist the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant and it is urged that the witnesses examined by the State were considered to be credible by the trial court and the finding recorded by the trial court did not merit interference. 5. Now adverting to the evidences placed on the record, Jagdish Kamat (P.W. 1), who was the maker of the fardbeyan, would reiterate his early version which he rendered before the Police barring some motive assigned to the appellant for committing the offence. He would state that as the land dispute was persisting with the appellant, who was insisting on him to transfer five kathas of land, he, having failed to oblige him was made victim of assault. The other witness, who claimed to be ocular, was Shakli Devi (P.W. 3). She happens to be the sister of Jagdish Kamat and she was on a bamboo machan which lies at a short distance of about ten yards from the hand pump where Jagdish Kamat was washing his mouth. She would narrate before the Court that while her brother was washing his mouth near the hand pump, the appellant went to his house, brought a farsa concealed in a cloth and made successive assaults on him, as a consequence of which right hand of Jagdish Kamat was completely chopped off. She would state to have narrated the incident to Bhagmatia Devi (P.W. 2) also. Similar narration were made also by Bhagmatia Devi (P.W. 2) about she having received information from Shakli Devi (P.W. 3) regarding the incident. She would state to have noticed her husband with wounds on his hand which had been completely chopped off. She would also notice the injuries on the neck. She would state to have informed the Police who rushed to the place of occurrence and referred her husband to Forbesganj hospital. The other witness examined by the State was Babulal Kamat (P.W. 4), who happens to be the father of the injured. Admittedly, he was not the ocular witness and he received information about the incident from Nago Kamat, Upendra Kamat (P.W. 5) and Deo Narain Kamat (P.W. 6), whose houses situate in the vicinity of the place of occurrence who, admittedly, turned volte face to the State. Admittedly, he was not the ocular witness and he received information about the incident from Nago Kamat, Upendra Kamat (P.W. 5) and Deo Narain Kamat (P.W. 6), whose houses situate in the vicinity of the place of occurrence who, admittedly, turned volte face to the State. The doctor Jai Narayan Gupta (P.W. 7), who clinically examined Jagdish Kamat, noticed complete cut wound on the whole right forearm. There was another cut wound on back of neck. Both the injuries in the estimation of the doctor were grievous and also dangerous to life. Bhrigunath Singh (P.W. 8), who happens to be Investigating Officer, stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence on receipt of information about the incident. He recorded the fardbeyan of Jagdish Kamat, pursuant to which first information report was drawn up at the Police Station. He stated to have apprehended the appellant and also seized blood stained farsa from the house of Dallu Kamat for which a seizure memo (Exhibit 4) was prepared by him. The defence examined one witness simply to counter the allegations attributed to the appellant. 6. True it is that no blood was noticed by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence nor there is any positive or credible evidence that the blood stained weapon was ever sent for chemical examination to draw a conclusion that the blood found on the weapon was human blood, but these are the lapses and omission on the part of the Investigating Officer for which the prosecution should not be a casuality. The narrations made by Jagdish Kamat, and Shakli Devi (P.W. 3) about the former sustaining injuries with sharp edged weapon when the appellant made successive assault on him, find ample corroboration from the positive findings recorded by the doctor, who clinically examined him. Failure of the Police Officer to send the blood stained weapon for chemical examination was not such a factor which can militate against the bona fide of the prosecution. Though some sort of information about the incident is shown to have been asked by the Police from the wife of the injured, but that seems to be cryptic statement without any explicit allegation against the appellant and that apart, when there was direct evidence of the witnesses, significance of suppression of early version was lost. Though some sort of information about the incident is shown to have been asked by the Police from the wife of the injured, but that seems to be cryptic statement without any explicit allegation against the appellant and that apart, when there was direct evidence of the witnesses, significance of suppression of early version was lost. The trial court has meticulously appreciated the probative value of the testimony of witnesses and on its appraisal rightly came to the conclusion to find the appellant guilty of the charges. 7. The appellant has suffered the ordeal of long prosecution for about 13 years and he has also been in custody for more than two years and on consideration of evidences placed on the record and also attending circumstances of the case, there being land dispute between the parties, while upholding the finding recorded by the trial court, I find the appellant guilty on both the counts. He is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and in addition to that, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) on each count, in default of which, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count but concurrently. The amount of fine is to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment which, so realised, be paid to the injured and, in case he is not alive, to his successor, and with this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.