JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.:- This appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. has been received through jail. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused), has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 39/9. Since the accused is lodged in jail, Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate, was appointed as legal aid counsel on behalf of the accused. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as follows. Sr. No. Offence Sentence imposed 1. 307 I PC Ten years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year 2. 326 IPC Ten years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of fine amount, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year 3. 324 IPC Simple imprisonment for three years. 3. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that the accused is the husband of PW-11, Smt. Dhanni, and father-in-law of PW-12, Smt. Manorthu and father of PW-13, Hans Raj. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th June, 1999 at about 7.15 a.m. the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to his wife, PW-11, Smt. Dhanni by cutting of her nose with a knife (a sharp edged weapon). It is further alleged that when PW-13, Hans Raj came to try to catch hold of the accused; he caused simple injuries on the hand and leg of Hans Raj with the knife. Thereafter the accused is alleged to have freed himself from the clutches of PW-13, Hans Raj. He then threw stones on PW-12, Manorthu. One of the stones struck the face of PW-12, Mnorthu and she fell down. Thereafter the accused went near PW-12, Manorthu and struck a blow with the knife on the abdomen of Manorthu as a result of which she started bleeding and her intestine came out of her stomach. The injury caused to PW-12, Manorthu is stated to be grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course to have caused her death. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 15 witnesses. The injury caused to PW-12, Manorthu is stated to be grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course to have caused her death. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 15 witnesses. Incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which defence of the accused is of total denial. According to him he had been implicated falsely since the complainant had taken away his sheep and goats and when he asked for the same, they beat him up. 5. Mr. Virender Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the accused has argued that the case of the prosecution is false and is not believable. According to him the time of the occurrence has been changed and cannot be ascertained from the evidence. He submits that no independent witnesses from the Lower Mal was, the village of the accused, were examined. The knife recovered is not connected with the offence and the recovery itself is doubtful. He submits that there are different versions in the FIR and in the statements recorded in the court. He also relies on the MLCs to buttress his submission that in fact villagers had caused inquires on the three injured persons and the accused has been falsely roped in. He also submitted that the blood stained clothes of Hans Raj and Manorthu and the blood stained mud has not been taken into possession nor sent to Chemical Examiner and hence the learned Court below has gravely erred in convicting the accused. 6. To properly appreciate the submissions of the parties, especially the appellant, it would be necessary to consider the evidence of the relevant witnesses. 7. PW-11, Dhanni Devi, is the wife of the accused. She has stated that there was some altercation with the accused since he wanted to take the herd of sheep to Pangi and sell the same. He also wanted to sell off his land. According to her the accused chopped off her nose. Thereafter PW-13, Hans Raj came to her rescue, but the accused inflicted injuries to Hans Raj. The accused then ran outside after PW-12, Manorthu. She states that PW-6, Beli Ram was present at that time and that thereafter PW-5, Naresh Kumar, Bhujal and Tej Lal had come to her house. According to her the accused chopped off her nose. Thereafter PW-13, Hans Raj came to her rescue, but the accused inflicted injuries to Hans Raj. The accused then ran outside after PW-12, Manorthu. She states that PW-6, Beli Ram was present at that time and that thereafter PW-5, Naresh Kumar, Bhujal and Tej Lal had come to her house. When Manorthu was brought inside, this witness saw that her abdomen had been cut and intestine was coming out of the wound. She was examined at District Hospital, Chamba and she identified her blood stained Shawl, Ex. P-2, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. She also identified the knife, Ex.P-1. She also stated that she had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance against the accused. In cross-examination she has admitted that here is litigation pending between her and the accused and also between her and one Hari Singh, to whom the accused is alleged to have sold his land. She denied the suggestion that she had concealed the herd of goats. She states that the accused might be under the influence or liquor. She has admitted the suggestion put to her by the accused that the accused has chopped of her nose in the kitchen. Nothing substantial has been extracted in her cross-examination. 8. PW-12, Smt. Manorthu, is the daughter of the accused. Relevant portion of her statement is that she had delivered a male child about 17 days prior to the date of incident. She was living separately. When she ran out, the accused had pelted stones on her and one of the stones struck her and she fell down on the ground alongwith her child. Thereafter the accused came near her and inflicted wound on her abdomen where after she became unconscious. She was treated at Dharmshala and remained in hospital for about 11 days. Her child also died during this period. 9. PW-13, Hans Raj is the son of the accused. He states that the family was objecting to the accused selling off his land and goats against their wishes. He states that accused had come to his house and chopped of the nose of PW-11, Smt. Dhanni. Thereafter his sister, Hamiru had called him. 9. PW-13, Hans Raj is the son of the accused. He states that the family was objecting to the accused selling off his land and goats against their wishes. He states that accused had come to his house and chopped of the nose of PW-11, Smt. Dhanni. Thereafter his sister, Hamiru had called him. He had caught the accused from behind, but the accused had inflicted injuries with the knife on the leg and the back of the head of the witness. The accused escaped from his grasp and thereafter pelted stones on PW-12, Manorthu and thereafter inflicted wound on his abdomen with his knife. The version of the aforementioned three injured witnesses is supported by PW-6, Beli Ram, who states that he had visited the house of the accused on 19.6.1999 at about 6.30 a.m. where PW-11 Dhanni and PW-12, Manorthu were present. The accused was intoxicated and was asking his wife about his herd of goats. PW-11, Smt. Dhanni replied that she did not know about the herd. Thereafter the accused took out the knife and chopped of the nose of PW-11, Smt. Dhanni. Hamiru, daughter of the accused, had rushed to call, PW-13, Hans Raj. Hans Raj came and caught hold of his father and then the accused caused injuries on the leg and hand of Hans Raj with the knife. After he freed himself from Hans Raj, the accused pelted stones on PW-12, Manorthu, who had run outside due to fear. The last stone struck PW-12, Manorthu and she fell down. Thereafter the accused went to Manorthu and struck a blow with the knife on her abdomen. As a result qf the wound, PW-12, Manorthu started bleeding profusely and her intestine came out from the wound. Thereafter the accused fled away. The witness states that then he went to inform his parents about the incidence. This witness had also joined the police investigation and knife, Ex.P-1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH which bears signature of this witness. He has identified the knife as well as his signatures on the memo and the sample seal impression. In cross-examination he has admitted that he accused had consumed about one and a half bottles in his presence. He admits that the accused was arrested two days after the incident on 21.6.1999. PH which bears signature of this witness. He has identified the knife as well as his signatures on the memo and the sample seal impression. In cross-examination he has admitted that he accused had consumed about one and a half bottles in his presence. He admits that the accused was arrested two days after the incident on 21.6.1999. He has denied the suggestion that the accused was totally under the influence of liquor at that time. He has denied the suggestion that the alongwith Bhujal, Naresh and Tej Lal had concealed the goats and sheep of the accused and that the accused had demanded his herd of sheep and they all attacked the accused. 10. Injured and the aforementioned PW-6, Beli Ram are the ocular witnesses. Their version is supported by PW-5, Naresh Kumar, who states that on 19.6.19 at about 7.15 a.m. he was informed by his nephew, PW6, Beli Ram about the incident and the accused having inflicted injuries with a knife on PW-11, Smt. Dhanni, PW-12, Manorthu and PW-13, Hans Raj. Thereupon these persons had gone to Nichli Malwas, village of the accused and had seen his sister, Manorthu, Dttanni and Hans Raj in the injured position. Thereafter they had taken Smt. Manorthu to Tissa hospital and Dhanni had been taken to police station. PW-5 had lodged the FIR. 11. PW-1, Dr. Atul Mahajan is lecturer in the department of Surgery in Dr. Rajinder Prashad Medical College, Dharmsala. He states that on 19.6.1999, PW-12, Manorthu had been brought to him after she was referred from District Hospital, Chamba. The history given was that she was stabbed that day itself at about 7.30 a.m. He had operated upon the patient who was discharged on 29.6.1999. According to him the aforesaid injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Manorthu, but for medical intervention. He has proved the discharge slip, Ex. PA and opinion, Ex. PB. He also stated that the injury could be caused by knife, Ex. PA. This witness has not been cross-examined except one suggestion has been put to him that the injury could be caused by falling on a sharp edged object which the witness has denied. 12. PW-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Snehlata is Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tissa. PB. He also stated that the injury could be caused by knife, Ex. PA. This witness has not been cross-examined except one suggestion has been put to him that the injury could be caused by falling on a sharp edged object which the witness has denied. 12. PW-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Snehlata is Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tissa. She states that she examined PW-11, Dhanni on 19.6.1999 and there was incised wound over her nose covering whole of the nasal cavities, deep upto the bone. She had referred the injured to District Hospital, Chamba for management of her wound. She has proved MLC, Ex. PC. In cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that the injury could have been caused by falling on a sharp edged object. 13. PW-3, Dr. Vikram Lakhanpal was, at the relevant time, posted as Medical Officer, District Hospital Chamba. He states that he examined Manorthu. He had found one injury on the right side of the face which was a lacerated wound. The other injury which he saw was an incised wound over the abdominal wall with intestinal loops coming out. He has stated that the patient was referred to Surgeon for expert opinion and management. He proved MLC, Ex. PD issued by him. According to him the abdominal injury could have been caused by knife Ex. P-1. He also denied the only suggestion put to him in cross-examination that the injury could be caused by falling on a sharp edged object. 14. PW-4, Dr. S.K. Mahajan, is Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital Chamba. He examined PW-11, Smt. Dhanni after she was referred from CHC, Tissa. According to him there was a clean incised wound over the middle of the nose standing horizontal through all over the nose. The Nasal cavities were exposed. According to him this injury was grievous and caused by a sharp edged weapon, like knife, Ex. P-1. He has proved his opinion, Ex. PE. He also denied the suggestion that such an injury could be caused by a person striking against a sharp edged weapon. 15. PW-14, Dr. Subhash Thakur, at the relevant time was also posted as Medical Officer, Chamba. He examined PW-13, Hans Raj on 19.6.1999. He has found that Hans Raj had suffered simple injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon. He further states that such injuries could have been caused by knife, Ex. P-1. 15. PW-14, Dr. Subhash Thakur, at the relevant time was also posted as Medical Officer, Chamba. He examined PW-13, Hans Raj on 19.6.1999. He has found that Hans Raj had suffered simple injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon. He further states that such injuries could have been caused by knife, Ex. P-1. He has denied the suggestion that the injuries could have been caused in a scuffle. 16. PW-7, Narain Singh, was one of the witnesses to the recovery of knife, Ex. P-1 and blood stained earth. He states that blood stained earth was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PJ. The knife was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH and that knife was lying in the kitchen near the hearth. He states that knife Ex. P-1 is the same. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination he has admitted that knife Ex. P-1 was produced by the accused from his pocket. However, in cross-examination by the accused, he has again stated that the knife was lying near the hearth. 17. PW-8 Kalyan Singh has stated that he was MHC, Police Station, Tissa at the relevant time. He states that PW-15, Inspector Jagdish had deposited the same parcels on different dates with him and they had not been tampered with when they remained with him. 18. PW-11 Ravinder Singh has stated that he had taken parcels from Police Station, Tissa to FSL, Junga and the same were not tampered while the same remained in his possession. 19. PW-10, Punjab Singh, Criminal Ahlmad, JMIC, Chamba has produced the record with regard to the case filed by injured Dhanni against her husband, Ram Lai accused. 20. PW-15, Jagidsh Chand in the Investigating Officer. Surprisingly, this witness, in cross-examination, has admitted the entire case of the accused and has accepted as correct the suggestions about which he could have no knowledge.. Though it may have no relevance for the decision of the present case, it is necessary to extract the following statement made by in cross-examination :- "It is correct to suggest that the accused is a shepherd. It is also correct that he used to go to Pungi area for grazing his, he or she goats. It is correct that on 19.6.1999, the accused was to go to Pangi area alongwith his, he or she goats. It is also correct that he used to go to Pungi area for grazing his, he or she goats. It is correct that on 19.6.1999, the accused was to go to Pangi area alongwith his, he or she goats. It is correct that on the said day, Manorthu, Dhanni, Rasalu and Hanso had kept concealed his he and she goats. It is also correct that when the accused demanded his, he and she goats from them, they started quarreling with the accused. Site plan was prepared by me at the instance of Om Devi and Beli Ram. It is incorrect that no seal after use was handed over to Sampuran witness. It is correct that all the aforesaid persons mounted an attack upon the accused. It is incorrect that I had recorded the statements of the witnesses of my own. It is correct that now-a-days, the accused is not living in his village/house out of fear. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely." 21. The Investigating Officer did not have any personal knowledge about the suggestions which he has admitted to be correct. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that an investigating officer admits the suggestions made by the accused of which he could have had no knowledge whatsoever. He has not even clarified his statement by saying that these facts came to his knowledge during the course of investigation. 22. In the face of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, he contentions raised by Mr. Verma are meaningless. The contention that the time of occurrence has been changed is not correct. The difference, if any, is only 15 to 20 minutes and has no material bearing on the case. Further, since there were three injured witnesses end one other eye-witness, there was no need to examine ant other witness from Lower Malwas. The Doctors have clearly stated that the wounds could have been caused by knife, Ex. P-1. It is no doubt true that the recovery witness, PW-7, Narsingh has become hostile, but even in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he has again admitted that the accused had taken the knife from his pocket. However, even if this version is not believed and recovery is rot accepted then also no benefit can be given to the accused in view of the statements of the eye-witnesses. However, even if this version is not believed and recovery is rot accepted then also no benefit can be given to the accused in view of the statements of the eye-witnesses. The fact that the Investigating officer has not taken into possession the blood stained clothes of Hans Raj and Manorthu may be a defect in the investigation, but in view of the unambiguous statements of the eye-witnesses, no benefit can be given to the accused. Similarly, the fact that he FIR was lodged at the instance of PW-5 even though PW-11 Smt. Dhani was present cannot in any way advance the case of the accused. No prejudice has been caused to the accused by the FIR being lodged by Sh. Naresh. This, it at all, is a defect in the investigation. However, the prejudice, if any, has been caused to the injured because the FIR had been lodged on the statement of a person who was not an eye-witnesses even though the eye-witnesses was present. Therefore, this contention does not help the accused. Even if there is some defect in the investigation, the statements of the eye-witnesses which have a ring of truth about them cannot be ignored. The eye-witnesses are the wife, daughter-in-law and son of the accused. Two of them have suffered grievous injuries. There is no reason why they should falsely try to implicate the accused. It is no doubt true that the relations between the husband and wife were strained and legal proceedings for the grant of maintenance were pending between them, but this could not be a ground for the wife to falsely implicate the husband in such a serious case. It is nobodys case that the injuries are self inflicted. The medical opinion of the doctors is absolutely clear that the injuries could not have been caused by a fall and cannot also be self inflicted. The authorities cited by the appellant, i.e. State of U.P. v. Arun Kumar Gupta, 2003 SCC 202; Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand, 2003(2) SCC 401; Kalyan and others v. State of U.P., 2001(9) SCC 632 and Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another, 2002(10) SCC 236 have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23. 23. It is by now well settled law that minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses or defect in the investigation cannot be a ground to acquit the accused, especially when ail the eye-witnesses have categorically and consistently stated in their statements that it was the accused who has caused the injuries. The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless there are compelling reasons for taking a view that they are falsely implicating the accused, their evidence cannot be discarded. Reference in this behalf may be made to State of M.P. v. Mansingh and others, 2003(10) SCC 414; State of H.P. v. Om Parkash and others, 2003 Crl. L.J. 2502 H.P. : 2004 (Suppl.) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) (D.B.) 589; and State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others, 2004(7) SCC 629. In the present case, as already stated above, the evidence of the injured witnesses and the eye-witnesses inspired confidence. The defence has failed to cause any dent in the testimony of the said witnesses. In fact the suggestions made on behalf of the accused clearly indicate that he has not denied his presence on the spot and in fact one or two suggestions are indicative of the fact that he has committed the offence, but under the influence of liquor. 24. In view of the clear-cut evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 25. The case property be dealt with in accordance with directions of the trial Court. 26. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sh. Varinder Verma, Amicus Curiae.