Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. Appellant suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. 2. Salient facts of the prosecution case, which are not with much details, can be recapitulated with brevity. Allegedly, Gauri Devi (PW 5) suffered assault with lethal weapon by the appellant when she had slept with her two children in her house near the cattle shed adjacent to Kalisthan. Her son rushed to his father and informed him about the incident, pursuant to which prosecution was launched against the appellant on behest of Babulal Yadav, husband of the injured on strength of his fardbeyan recorded by Police at 8.15 hours on 16th July, 1998 at Kharagpur State hospital. As usual investigation commenced, during which Police Officer collected evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined nine witnesses, who were injured, her family members including husband and son, the doctor, who clinically examined the injured and also host of other witnesses who stated to have witnessed Gauri Devi lying injured with some wounds on her person. 3. Defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court has been that of innocence and he ascribed false implication for no good reasons. Other defence of the appellant argued at Bar was that though injured suffered injuries in darkness at the hands of some unknown persons, appellant was sought to be implicated without there being valid reason. The trial Court, however on evaluation of probative value of the testimony of witnesses, while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. Though narrations made by prosecution witnesses have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, that may be discussed with brevity to appreciate the contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Babulal Yadav (PW 7), who happens to be husband of the injured Gauri Devi and also maker of the Jurdbeyan, states about he having been informed by his son Dinesh Yaday for Gauri Devi having suffered injuries by lethal weapon by the appellant. Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Babulal Yadav (PW 7), who happens to be husband of the injured Gauri Devi and also maker of the Jurdbeyan, states about he having been informed by his son Dinesh Yaday for Gauri Devi having suffered injuries by lethal weapon by the appellant. Comments made by the learned counsel for the appellant on credibility of this witness was that if fardbeyan, which is the earliest version of the State, was to be given any credence, Dinesh Yadav was not suggested to have disclosed complicity of the appellant to his father. 5. I may switch over now to the evidence of Dinesh Yadav (PW 6) who too had slept with his mother in the night when she suffered injuries by lethal weapon allegedly by the appellant. He states to have witnessed with naked eyes, the appellant dealing blows with garasa on his mother when she suffered injuries on the ear, shoulder and also neck, pursuant to which appellant had made good his escape. Though he stated to have rushed to his house where he informed his father, however, it is strange that the witness did not claim to have disclosed complicity of the appellant to his father, as the assailant of his mother, 6. Profitably, now I can delve upon the testimony of Gauri Devi (PW 5) who happens to be none else but the injured, and if she is to be considered credible, while she was guarding the cattle near Kalisthan in the mid night, appellant dealt successive blows on her causing injuries on her neck and temporal region despite all entreaties made by her, pursuant to which his son Dinesh Yadav, who had slept with her, had raised alarm and rushed to inform his father. She stated to have informed her husband who came on hearing, about the incident. She had turned unconscious and she regained her consciousness at hospital where she was carried. As for genesis of the incident, the witness states that three months preceding the incident, wife of the appellant had picked up a quarrel with her and for that reason alone he had assaulted her. She had turned unconscious and she regained her consciousness at hospital where she was carried. As for genesis of the incident, the witness states that three months preceding the incident, wife of the appellant had picked up a quarrel with her and for that reason alone he had assaulted her. Comment on credibility of this witness made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that it would appear from evidence of the Investigating Officer that contrary to the assertions made by her, she did not make parallel statement before the Police about narrating the incident to her husband when he came to her. 7. Now, narrations made by those witnesses who though are not ocular witness to the assault but had lent assurance to the prosecution version about Gauri Devi having suffered injuries on her person, can be noticed, and they happen to be Muni Lal Yadav (PW 1), Sakaldeo Kumar Yadav (PW 2), Rajaram Yadav (PW 3) and Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW 4). Though attention of Muni Lal Yadav (PW 1) had been drawn by the defence about witness having not made parallel statement before the Police for witnessing injury on the neck of the injured, Police Officer in his evidence states that he stated about Gauri Devi being carried by her husband with wounds on her person. Credibility of Sakaldeo Kumar Yadav (PW 2) was sought to be impeached by the counsel for the defence for not making such parallel statement before the Police about witnessing some persons carrying injured Gauri Devi too Kharagpur hospital. This witness however, did not claim to have rushed to the place of occurrence. Though Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW 4) stated to have witnessed Gauri Devi lying injured with 6-7 wounds on her person, evidence of Investigating Officer was that he did not expressly narrate about 6-7 wounds on the person of Gauri Devi, which in fact did not make exclusion of this witness among those who witnessed Gauri Devi injured. 8. Now positive findings recorded by Dr Ashok Roy (PW 9) can also be noticed who noticed as many as five injuries on the person of Gauri Devi which were in the nature of incised wounds over right ear, on right side of the neck, on scapular region, on right shoulder, and also below right ear. 8. Now positive findings recorded by Dr Ashok Roy (PW 9) can also be noticed who noticed as many as five injuries on the person of Gauri Devi which were in the nature of incised wounds over right ear, on right side of the neck, on scapular region, on right shoulder, and also below right ear. Injury No. 1 in estimation of the doctor was grievous in nature caused by sharp cut weapon. Comment made by the learned counsel for the appellant on the positive finding recorded by the doctor was that though the doctor stated to have noticed one injury to be grievous in nature, he had not recorded any finding about injury to be ever dangerous to life which did not bring the mischief of the appellant, within the mischief of Section 307 of the Penal Code. Other submission made at Bar was that since no good motive had been assigned by the State which actuated the appellant to make assault, prosecution case has to be discarded on this score alone, and referring to evidence of Gauri Devi (PW 5) about wife of the appellant having picked up a quarrel with her, three months preceding the incident, it was urged that if that be considered to be motive behind the incident, that appears to be not only remote but also fragile. Contention raised can, however, be negatived for the simple reason that it has been reiterated in catena of decisions of the Court that in all cases it was not always possible for the Court to gauge to know about motive of the offender which is lodged within his mind. It was not a case where no motive at all had been assigned, and it is well known that in all cases all the persons in same circumstance do not react similarly. 9. Other argument was that though the Police Officer stated to have noticed blood at the place of occurrence, neither he effected seizure of them nor there has been finding of the chemical examiner to suggest that the blood, which was noticed by the Investigating Officer was human blood and oh this score too I may reiterate that these are matters of petty details which did not befog real issue and for lapses on part of the Investigating Officer neither the prosecution can be a casualty nor a good finding of the Court can be upset. 10. Yet it is urged that though the occurrence took place on 16.7.1998, the appellant suffered agony of protracted prosecution for about five years and that apart, when the appellant was examined by the trial Court on 19.6.2001, he was assessed by the trial Court to be of 55 years and by now he must be more than 57 years. On these premises it is highlighted at Bar that sentence awarded to the appellant which is excessive needs to be reduced considerably as the appellant has remained in custody for about two years. Though some sort of argument was also sought to be raised that identification of the appellant was improbable in the darken night, it looses all its significance, appellant being none else but the person with whose family there had been a quarrel in the past. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, regard being had to the evidences placed on the record and also attending circumstances of the case including that the appellant had dealt successive blows with lethal weapon, for which there had been corresponding findings of the doctor, while finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is upheld, sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to four years and with this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification.