Judgment S. N. Aggarwal, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad by which the appellant was convicted for having committed offences under Sections 326 and 506 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00 under Sec.326, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.506 IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that on 9.12.1998 at about 8 P. M. , a minor altercation took place between Rohtash -complainant and Surjeet Singh - accused/appellant but the respectable persons intervened and the situation was saved. On 10.12.1998, at about 5.30 P. M. Rohtash complainant along with Varinder and Shiv Narain were present in the office of Vijay Property Dealer. Surjit Singh appellant came there and he called the complainant out. Rohtash went out. When he reached near Surjeet-accused, he (complainant) was attacked with a knife by the accused/appellant. The first knife blow was struck on the right side of the chest of Rohtash while the second blow fell on the right flank. Rohtash raised alarm which attracted Varinder and Shiv Narain and they saved Rohtash from accused Surjeet Singh. Surjeet Singh-accused went away leaving a threat that the complainant will not be spared. Virender and Shiv Narain shifted Rohtashcomplainant to B. K. Hospital, Faridabad and the intimation was sent by the Doctor to the police. The police reached there. The statement of Rohtash was recorded by the police at 7.30 P. M. and the present case was registered under Sections 324 and 506 IPC. 3. During the investigation of this case, Rohtash was got medically examined and treated. The accused was arrested and the knife was recovered from him. The doctor reported that. the injuries on the person of Rohtash were dangerous to life and the offence was converted into one under Sec.307 IPC. Investigation was completed and the accused was sent up for trial. 4. Charges under Sections 307,324 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. S. K. Bhutani, as PW- 1. Investigation was completed and the accused was sent up for trial. 4. Charges under Sections 307,324 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. S. K. Bhutani, as PW- 1. He had conducted medico-legal examination of Rohtash on 10.12.1998 at about 6.10 P. M. and had found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm x 1.25 cm on the anterior aspect of chest at 4th and 5th inter-coastal space level about 6 cm right to mid line. X-ray was advised.2. An incised wound 2 cm. x.1.5 cm. x 3 cm. in right axillary region in mid axillary line about 8 cm. below axilla. X-ray was advised. The doctor had reported that the injuries were kept under observation and were caused with a sharp, weapon within a probable duration of two hours. He also proved correct carbon copy of the medico-legal report Exhibit PA. He had also sent ruqqa Ex. PA/i to the police. 6. Asi Bhagat Ram, PW-2 had investigated this case. He had also arrested the accused on 15.12.1998 who had handed over the knife to the police which was taken into possession through recovery memo Exhibit PB. The sketch of the knife was exhibited as PC. He also deposed that on 17.12.1998, he had obtained the report of Medical Officer regarding the nature of injury Nos.1 and 2 who reported that the injuries were dangerous to life. 7. Dr. A. P. Jayant, PW-3 had examined Rohtash injured radiologically and he reported that no rib fracture was seen. Head Constable Rajinder Singh, PW-4 had recorded the statement of Rohtash Exhibit PF. After making his endorsement Exhibit PF/1, he got FIR Exhibit PF/2 registered. He reached the spot and prepared rough site plan Exhibit PG. He also made application Exhibit PH for obtaining opinion of the doctor if Rohtash was fit to make the statement. 8. Rohtash injured complainant himself appeared as PW-5. He also supported the prose cution case on oath in all its details. He also proved that a tiff had taken place between him and the accused on 9.12.1998 at about 8 P. M. but the matter was got patched up. Dr. N. K. Sharma SMO was examined as PW-6. 8. Rohtash injured complainant himself appeared as PW-5. He also supported the prose cution case on oath in all its details. He also proved that a tiff had taken place between him and the accused on 9.12.1998 at about 8 P. M. but the matter was got patched up. Dr. N. K. Sharma SMO was examined as PW-6. He proved application Exhibit PH and his opinion is Exhibit PD vide which the injuries were declared as dangerous to life. The prosecution evidence was closed. 9. Surjeet Singh accused/appellant was examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C and he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed innocence. He took up the plea that he has been falsely implicated due to party faction in the village and denied if any such incident had taken place. However, the accused led no evidence in defence. 10. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court reached the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove ingredients of Sec.3261pc and the accused was Convicted accordingly. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Sec.506 IPC vide judgment dated 11.12.2002 and was sentenced as stated above. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. 11. The main submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that the case is based on the statement of Rohtash, PW-5 alone. Varinder and Shiv Narain who were the eye witnesses of the occurrence have not been examined and, therefore, the accused be acquitted. 12. This submission has been considered by me. It has been proved by the prosecution that verbal altercation had taken place between the appellant and Rohtash-complainant on 9.12.1998 at about 8 P. M. The occurrence had taken place on 10.12.1998 at about 5.30 P. M. and the injured was removed to the hospital without any loss of time. It is supported by Dr. S. K. Bhutani, PW-1 who deposed that Rohtash was admitted in the hospital at 6.10 P. M. on 10.12.1998. He was medically examined and the injuries were found on his person. It was not suggested to the doctor if these injuries could be self suffered. Dr. S. K. Bhutani PW-1 has clearly stated that the injuries were suffered by Rohtash within a period of two hours from the time of medical examination. This statement of Dr. He was medically examined and the injuries were found on his person. It was not suggested to the doctor if these injuries could be self suffered. Dr. S. K. Bhutani PW-1 has clearly stated that the injuries were suffered by Rohtash within a period of two hours from the time of medical examination. This statement of Dr. S. K. Bhutani clearly lends credence to the prosecution case that the injuries were suffered by Rohtash on 10.12.1998 after 4.10 P. M. and the nature of injuries was such that these could not be self-suffered nor these could be caused by a friendly hand. 13. The statement of Rohtash was recorded without loss of time. Information was sent to the police by Dr. S. K. Bhutani, PW-1 through written slip Exhibit PA/i and the police party reached the spot almost simultaneously and after obtaining opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Rohtash in making the statement, the statement of Rohtash was recorded which has been proved as Exhibit PF. While making statement in the court, Rohtash had attributed these injuries to Surjeet Singh appellant who had given knife blows on the vital part of body of Rohtash. He has also deposed that he raised an alarm on which Virender and Shiv Narain intervened and saved him from Surjeet Singh accused/appellant and thereafter Surjeet Singh had left the place by giving a threat. Rohtash PW-5 has also stated so in the court. 14. Normally in the case of a single accused, the story of false implication is not known to criminal law. It is not possible that somebody else had caused injuries to Rohtash and Rohtash had given a go-bye to the real culprits and falsely implicated Surjeet Singh appellant. Reference can be made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported as Rizan and another V/s. State of Chhatisgarh, in which their Lordships quoted with approval the observations made in an earlier judgment while dealing with the statement of a relative witness. The statement of the injured himself is on a better footing. These observations of their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court are reproduced below: Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. The statement of the injured himself is on a better footing. These observations of their Lordships of Honble Supreme Court are reproduced below: Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts. 15. It is also settled law that judgment of conviction can be recorded on the statement of the victim alone if it is found to be reliable and worthy of belief. In the present case, Rohtash PW-5 has reported the matter to the police without delay. He was shifted to the hospital within one hour and he has made his sworn statement against Surjeet Singh, accused/appellant in the court. He has also deposed about the motive because some altercation had taken place between the victim and the accused one day earlier but the situation was saved by the intervention of respectable persons. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to believe that it was Surjeet Singh alone who had caused injuries to him. 16. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that medical opinion was not given by Dr. S. K. Bhutani regarding the nature of injuries found on the person of Rohtash. The prosecution, however, has examined Dr. N. K. Sharma, PW-6 who has proved that application Exhibit PD was filed before him in order to know the nature of injuries and he had declared injuries Nos.1 and 2 as dangerous to life. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that Dr. N. K. Sharma had no opportunity to examine the patient and, therefore, he could not give the nature of injuries. 17. This submission appears to be totally without any basis. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that Dr. N. K. Sharma had no opportunity to examine the patient and, therefore, he could not give the nature of injuries. 17. This submission appears to be totally without any basis. Dr. N. K. Sharma was also employed in B. K. Hospital, Faridabad where the patient was admitted, It may be that Dr. S. K. Bhutani was on duty when Rohtash was got admitted and it may also be possible that Dr. N. K. Sharma was on duty when application Exhibit PD was filed to know the nature of injuries. The doctor even repeated while making statement in the court that the injuries were dangerous to life. Keeping in view the nature of weapon, seat of injuries and the medical opinion, there was no doubt that an offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC is clearly made out, but, since the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sec.326 IPC, which is an offence of smaller degree, therefore, the conviction cannot be altered to one under Sec.307 IPC. The threat hurled by Surjeet Singh accused/appellant to Rohtash is also proved. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Sec.506 IPC is also upheld. 18. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Sec.326 IPC and to pay fine amount of Rs.20,000.00. The amount of compensation should be much more so that the victim is compensated in terms of money which he has spent on his medical treatment and the amount required by him for future treatment also. Reference, in this context, may be made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported as Han Kishan and State of Haryana V/s. Sukhbir Singh and others. 19. In the above circumstances, therefore, a little amendment in the sentence part of the judgments required in the interest of justice. The amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. one lac while the sentence is reduced to one already undergone. If the appellant deposits the fine amount of Rs. one lac the entire amount will go to Rohtash injured. If this amount of Rs. one lac is not deposited by the appellant within a period of three months from today, then the appeal shall stand dismissed. The accused who is on bail will be thereafter re-arrested to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. one lac the entire amount will go to Rohtash injured. If this amount of Rs. one lac is not deposited by the appellant within a period of three months from today, then the appeal shall stand dismissed. The accused who is on bail will be thereafter re-arrested to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. This Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Appeal disposed of.