JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Appellant Nitin Kumar stands convicted for offence punishable u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 2,000.00 in default whereof further R.I. for one month's by the impugned judgment and order dated 30-11-2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 381/2000. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26-5-2000 complainant Vijay Kumar Shukla was standing at his shop situated near Bengali Club and when he was going to urinate, he saw appellant Nitin and co-accused Asif indulging in eve-teasing. The complainant asked the accused persons not to do so. On this, co-accused Asif caught hold of the complainant and appellant Nitin dealt a knife blow on his chest. Appellant dealt another blow on the left forearm of the complainant and he undertook two other blows on his palm. After the incident both the accused persons took to their heels. The complainant was taken to Victoria Hospital where he was examined by Dr. S.A. Khan (PW. 4). He found as many as four injuries on the person of complainant Vijay Kumar as per his report Ex. P. 5. The patient was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur but instead of taking him to Medical College, Jabalpur, he was taken to National Hospital, Jabalpur. On the information received from National Hospital, Jabalpur, Sub Inspector J.P. Tiwari, P.S. Garha, reached there and recorded the Dehati Nalsi vide Ex. P. 1. On the basis of Dehati nalsi, first information report Ex. P. 20 was drawn at the police station. During investigation, spot map was prepared. Blood stained earth and plain earth was recovered from the spot. Blood stained clothes of complainant Vijay Kumar were recovered. Appellant was arrested on 29-5-2000. In pursuance of the information given by appellant Nitin Kumar, a knife was seized as per Ex.P. 16. Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Jabalpur Unit. Ex.P. 22 is the report of F.S.L. Jablapur Unit. As per this report, blood was found on the earth recovered from the spot and on the shirt recovered from complainant. No blood was found on the knife recovered in pursuance of the information given by appellant Nitin. 4-5. After investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Co-accused Asif being a juvenile, challan against him was filed in the Juvenile Court. No blood was found on the knife recovered in pursuance of the information given by appellant Nitin. 4-5. After investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Co-accused Asif being a juvenile, challan against him was filed in the Juvenile Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, framed charge u/s 307, Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt. He pleaded that he runs a tea shop and complainant and his friends used to take tea at his shop without paying anything. When he tried to lodge the FIR about this incident, complainant and his friends did not allow him to lodge the report and have falsely implicated him. The appellant also examined Hariram Kethwas as defence witness. After concluding the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has filed this appeal. I have heard Shri V.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Chanchal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State and gone through the record of the case. Shri Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge is illegal and sentence awarded is harsh. Smt. Sharma, learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant and contended that the sentence imposed upon him is reasonable and calls for no interference. On thorough scrutiny of the trial Court's judgment, I find that the conviction is based on eye-witness account of injured Vijay Shukla (PW-1), Sanjay Shukla, (PW-2), brother of Vijay Shukla, Uma Shanker (PW-3) and Chakresh Naik (PW-4). Vijay Shukla (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident, he was standing at his shop. At about 8.00 P.M., when he was going to urinate, appellant Nitin and co-accused Asif were teasing some girls. He objected and asked the appellant not to do so, whereupon co-accused Asif caught hold of his hand and appellant dealt a knife blow on his chest. He dealt another knife blow on his left elbow. When he tried to snatch the knife he sustained injury on his palm also. He objected and asked the appellant not to do so, whereupon co-accused Asif caught hold of his hand and appellant dealt a knife blow on his chest. He dealt another knife blow on his left elbow. When he tried to snatch the knife he sustained injury on his palm also. After causing him injuries both the accused persons took to their heels. Several people gathered at the spot. He was taken to Victoria Hospital where he was examined by Dr. S.A. Khan (PW. 4). Sanjay Shukla (PW-2) has stated that on the date of incident, at about 8.15 P.M. when he was standing outside his shop, he saw appellant Nitin causing knife injuries to his brother Vijay Kumar. Uma Shanker (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident, near Bengali Club, Asif had caught hold of the hand of Vijay Shukla and appellant caused knife injuries. Vijay Shukla was thereafter taken to Victoria Hospital and from there to National Hospital. Other eye witness Chakresh Naik (PW-8) has also supported the prosecution case. The evidence of eye-witnesses is corroborated by Medical evidence. Dr. S.A. Khan (PW-4) who examined Vijay Shukla has stated that he found four incised wounds on Vijay Shukla. Dr. J.P. Kapoor who operated upon the injuries of Vijay Shukla, in answer to the queries put by S.D.O., P.S. Omti, has stated that the injury on the chest of Vijay Shukla was dangerous to life. Ex. P. 15-A is the report of Dr. J.P. Kapoor. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sanjay Shukla (PW-2) is the brother of complainant Vijay Shukla, injured witness. He is an interested witness, hence, his evidence will have to be considered with great caution and it will not be safe to accept his interested testimony. Mere relationship by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a witness as unworthy of credence, in the absence of any other circumstance to detract from the evidentiary value of his testimony. Complainant Vijay Shukla and Sanjay Shukla, both the brothers used to run the shop and, therefore, presence of Sanjay Shukla at the place of occurrence is natural. Merely because Sanjay Shukla is the brother of complainant, he cannot be branded as unreliable. After scanning his deposition on merits, it was found to be acceptable by the trial Court. Complainant Vijay Shukla and Sanjay Shukla, both the brothers used to run the shop and, therefore, presence of Sanjay Shukla at the place of occurrence is natural. Merely because Sanjay Shukla is the brother of complainant, he cannot be branded as unreliable. After scanning his deposition on merits, it was found to be acceptable by the trial Court. A relative witness ordinarily may not show any tendency to give evidence in order to implicate innocent person by excluding the real culprits. Regarding other eye witnesses Uma Shanker (PW-3) and Chakresh Naik (PW. 8), learned counsel for appellant submitted that they are friends of complainant and, therefore, they are interested witnesses. On this ground alone their evidence should be discarded. It is wrong as a general proposition to discard a witness merely because he is interested. The rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead to failure of justice. The evidence must be discarded or accepted on the merit of that evidence and not merely because the man is interested. Simply because the witnesses are interested or relatives, no offender can be acquitted on that ground alone. The presence of Uma Shanker and Chakresh Naik at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted and their evidence is consistent with the surrounding circumstances and the probability of the case strikes the Court as true. It can be a good foundation for conviction more so if assurance is available from the medical evidence. After carefully weighing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court believed their evidence. On independent assessment of the evidence I also do not find any ground to take a contrary view. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that it was appellant who caused injuries to the complainant cannot be found faulted with. This brings me to the crucial question as to what offence has the appellant committed? Dr. S.A. Khan who examined the complainant at Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur and operated upon the injury of the complainant does not say that the injury caused to the complainant was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the death of Vijay Kumar Shukla would have occurred, case would have fallen u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, therefore, conviction u/s 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld. Dr. Kapoor has specifically stated that the injury was dangerous to life. If the death of Vijay Kumar Shukla would have occurred, case would have fallen u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, therefore, conviction u/s 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld. Dr. Kapoor has specifically stated that the injury was dangerous to life. Where a doctor describes an injury as dangerous to life and the nature of injury is such which could merit such a conclusion then such a injury is to be treated as grievous hurt under clause eighthly of section 320, Indian Penal Code therefore, injury though grievous would not disclose the offence punishable u/s 307, Indian Penal Code but the accused can be convicted u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. In view of the aforesaid discussion, conviction of the appellant u/s 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained and the same is, therefore, set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and instead he is convicted for an offence punishable u/s 326, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has awarded a sentence of R.I. for four years. Since the conviction is being modified for minor offence, it would be proper to reduce the sentence also. In the circumstances of the case, I find that sentence of R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000.00 would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence is modified and the appellant shall stand convicted u/s 326, Indian Penal Code instead u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and he will suffer R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 1000.00 instead of R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 1000.00. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the appeal is partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed