R. S. SODHI ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 4. 1998 and 2. 4. 1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. ( 2 ). Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are that: "on 1. 11. 1994, DD No. 61-B was handed over to SI-Chander Sheikher to the effect that at about 12. 55 night, lady constable from PCR informed through wireless set that at factory No. B-124, Okhla Phase-I, one person has been stabbed with knife and local police be sent. On receipt of this DD entry, Sl Chander Sheikher along with constable Nirbhay Singh reached at the spot i. e. jhuggi, near Factory, B, Okhla industrial Area and on inquiry, he came to know that the injured has been removed to aiims Hospital No eye witness met the Sl Chander Shekher (I. O) at the spot and he went to the AIIMS and found injured-Jai Bahadur admitted there vide MLC no 99686 The doctor declared the injured unfit for making statement After perusing the MLC of the injured and DD No 61-B, he made endorsement on DD No 61-B and got the case registered and took up the investigation himself During investigation, i. O. inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of the witnesses and on 26. 11. 1994, he recorded the statement of the injured after his discharge from the hospital I. O. recovered the knife used in the commission of crime and took the same into possession, collected the MLC of the injured, arrested accused-Devender Singh and after completion of investigation, he filed the challan in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who in turn committed this case to the court of Sessions it being exclusively triable as such Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 307 and claimed trial. " ( 3 ). The prosecution, in order to bring home its case, examined six witnesses. Of these, pw-1, Jai Bahadur, is the injured witness. In his statement, PW-1 has stated that on 30. 10. " ( 3 ). The prosecution, in order to bring home its case, examined six witnesses. Of these, pw-1, Jai Bahadur, is the injured witness. In his statement, PW-1 has stated that on 30. 10. 1994, he was coming out of his jhuggi at about 10/11 p. m. to unnate and met accused, devender Singh who questioned this witness for having urinated near his jhuggi upon which an altercation accrued and the accused took out a knife, gave a blow on the left side neck of the injured. This witness then ran towards his jhuggi where he fell unconscious. He regained consciousness in hospital and made a statement to the police at the police station This witness remained in the hospital for about 10 days. The injured, Jai Bahadur, was examined by Dr. Talwar, PW-5, who found that a major vein had been cut at the side of the neck and that the injury was dangerous to life. PW-3, Deepak Thapa, did not support the prosecution s case. However, when his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , was recorded, he has stated that the accused inflicted injury on Jai Bahadur whereafter Jai Bahadur was shifted to the hospital in the PCR van. ( 4 ). It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the statement of the injured, Jai Bahadur, finds no corroboration in view of the fact that PW-3 does not support the prosecution s version and, therefore, the prosecution, according to him, has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. ( 5 ). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, in particular, the statement of PW-1 as also PW-3 and PW-5, Dr. Talwar. Even hough PW-3, Deepak Thapa, has turned hostile, yet I find no reason why PW-1, Jai bahadur s statement ought not to be believed. He has narrated the incident accurately and his statement finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Further, from the statement of pw-6, Sl Chander Sheikher as also from the statement of PW-4, Constable Nirbhay Singh, who deposed to the disclosure statement and recovery of the knife, Ex. P-1, there is sufficient corroboration and the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel has also taken me through the judgment under challenge. P-1, there is sufficient corroboration and the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel has also taken me through the judgment under challenge. From a careful perusal of the same I find that the reasoning of the learned Judge and his appreciation of the evidence suffers from no infirmity. I, therefore, affirm the same. Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1998 is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender to serve out remaining portion of his sentence. His bail bond and the surety is cancelled.