JUDGMENT :- Challeng in this appeal is to conviction and sentence rendered by learned 2nd AddI. Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No.18/1991 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months more. 2. Appellant Bajirao is a retired Police Head Constable. He had married P. W. Asarabai (complainant) after death of her first husband. It was second marriage of the appellant too. Then, P.W. Asrabai was having a daughter from her first marriage. That daughter - P.W. Shardabai and Police constable P.W. Naresh Chakre performed love marriage which the appellant had disapproved. 3. The appellant had purchased three plots at Ambajogai and had sold two of them. He had shifted his residence to Beed after the retirement. According to him, he had purchased one of the plot in name of P.W. Asrabai after their (Gandharva) marriage. There was dispute, however, regarding ownership of that plot. There were bickering and quarrels between the appellant and his second wife-P.W. Asrabai. They separated from each other and there took place customary divorce between them on 24th October, 1989. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. Asrabai had decided to carry out certain construction on that, one plot adjacent to her house. The appellant went to her house at about 02.00 p.m. on 14th March, 1990. At the relevant time, P. S. Asrabai had gone to Office of the Municipal Council in order to obtain permission for proposed construction. P.W. Naresh Chakre and his wife-P.W. Shardabai were present at the house. The appellant then picked up a quarrel with them. He stared towards P.W. Naresh and said that he shall be driven away from the house. The appellant further declared that he had lot of money and he would beat if anybody would come in his way. Then P.W. Naresh told the appellant that he had left no concern with the property of P.W. Asrabai after their divorce. The appellant attempted to enter in the house but P.W. Naresh stood in the way. The appellant took out a knife and assaulted P.W. Naresh. He gave two blows of knife on the left side ribs and back of P.W. Naresh. The appellant attempted to enter in the house but P.W. Naresh stood in the way. The appellant took out a knife and assaulted P.W. Naresh. He gave two blows of knife on the left side ribs and back of P.W. Naresh. So, P. W. Naresh was injured and fell down on the sand which was stacked on the plot in front of the house. To save him, P.W. Shardabai rushed there and covered his person. The appellant inflicted multiple successive knife blows on P. W. Shardabai and hence she also sustained bleeding injuries. The incident was reported to PSO, Ambajogai. Injured P.W. Naresh and P.W. Shardabai were referred to the S.R.T.R. Medical College Hospital, Ambajogai for examination and treatment. On that examination, P.W. Dr. Rajput noticed eight incised wounds on the person of P.W. Shardaba and three incised wounds on the person of P. W Naresh. He issued necessary medical ceI1ificates in the mean while, F.I.R. was lodged by P.W Asrabai. The police carried out necessary investigation. The appellant had visited the police station at Ambajogai in the same noon, He did produce a stick and a knife which were seized under a panchanama. On the basis of material gathered during course of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.30) and claimed to be tried. According to him, he was falsely prosecuted in the criminal case due to inimical terms and because complainant-P.W. Asrabai desired to purchase his plot which he had sold to another person. No specific defence was raised by him. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and adduced certain documentary evidence. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge held that offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved against the appellant but the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been duly proved. Consequently, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 6. There is direct evidence of P.W.6 Radhabai, P.W.7 Naresh Chakre and P.W.8 Shardabai in respect of the incident of alleged assault. They are inter related. P.W. Radhabai is mother of the complainant-P.W.5 Asrabai. Consequently, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 6. There is direct evidence of P.W.6 Radhabai, P.W.7 Naresh Chakre and P.W.8 Shardabai in respect of the incident of alleged assault. They are inter related. P.W. Radhabai is mother of the complainant-P.W.5 Asrabai. Though P.W.2 Sudamatibai, P.W.3 Krishnabai and P.W.4 Sunanda were examined as independent eye witnesses, yet they did not corroborate case of the prosecution in so far as involvement of the appellant is concerned. They were declared hostile to the prosecution. Their versions would show, however, that they had heard shouts from place of the incident and that they had seen P.W. Shardabai in injured condition. 7. The version of P.W.7 Naresh and It P.W.8 Shardabai, considered together, go to 11 show that the appellant went to house of the complainant-P.W. Asrabai in the relevant noon and picked up quarrel with them. The evidence of these two witnesses further show that P.W. Asrabai had gone to Office of Municipal Council, Ambajogai, at the relevant time. The evidence of P.W. Naresh reveals that the appellant stared at him and told Shamrao Deokar, f who had accompanied the appellant that he shall be driven out from that house. Then, P.W. Naresh replied that the appellant had no concern with the house. There was exchange of hot words between them. The versions of P.W. Naresh and P.W. Shardabai would show that the appellant attempted to enter the house and then inflicted two blows of knife on the left side ribs and back of P.W. Naresh who fell down in injured condition and P.W. Shardabai rushed there to save him. She fell on his person in her attempt to save him. The appellant then gave multiple knife blows on her person. She too was injured. Thereafter P.W. Naresh pushed away the appellant. Both of them narrated as to how they were admitted in the S.R.T.R. Medical College Hospital, Ambajogai, after the incident. 8. A searching cross-examination was directed against both these witnesses. The cross-examination of P.W. Naresh reveals that he had pushed the appellant towards western side wall and in the process the appellant had fallen down. He admits that he did not make attempt to snatch away knife from hands of the appellant. 8. A searching cross-examination was directed against both these witnesses. The cross-examination of P.W. Naresh reveals that he had pushed the appellant towards western side wall and in the process the appellant had fallen down. He admits that he did not make attempt to snatch away knife from hands of the appellant. He states that he had given oral information to the PSO Shri.Bansode after reaching Ambajogai Police Station at about 2.30 p.m. His police statement was recorded at the hospital while he was under medical treatment. He admits that the appellant had given a complaint to the police against him about beating. He admitted further that the appellant had objected his marriage with P.W. Shardabai. Similarly, P.W. Shardabai also admitted that the appellant did not approve their marriage. Her evidence reveals that the appellant had settled her marriage with a bridegroom from village Bardapur in or about 1988 but she had developed love affair with P.W. Naresh and hence they got performed marriage against wish of the appellant. She admitted unequivocally, that P.W. Naresh had a stick with him. She narrated that after the quarrel was over and she had intervened, they had returned to the house but subsequently she heard cry of P.W. Naresh. She saw that the appellant gave two knife blows on person of P.W. Naresh. So, she rushed there and fell down on his person. 9. P.W.6 Radhabai is not eye witness to the main incident. Her testimony purports to show that she was present in the house of a neighbor and reached the place after hearing shouts. She claims that injured Sharda was lying on the heap of sand and was being lifted by P.W. Krishnabai and P.W. Shardabai. She further deposed that the appellant was present at that place with a knife in his hand. Nothing of significance could be gathered from her cross-examination. 10. The remaining evidence of the prosecution need not be discussed in details. P.W.9 Shri.kishan did not support recovery panchanama. He was declared hostile. He denied that the appellant had produced a knife at Police Station, Ambajogai, and the same was seized in his presence. P. W.10 ASI Bansode deposed that P.W.7 Naresh and P.W.8 Shardabai had been to the Police Station at about 3.05 p.m. and both of them were seriously injured. Then P.W. Naresh was unable to talk coherently. He denied that the appellant had produced a knife at Police Station, Ambajogai, and the same was seized in his presence. P. W.10 ASI Bansode deposed that P.W.7 Naresh and P.W.8 Shardabai had been to the Police Station at about 3.05 p.m. and both of them were seriously injured. Then P.W. Naresh was unable to talk coherently. ASI Bansode further deposed that the appellant also visited the police station at about the same time and had produced a stick and a knife which came to be seized under a seizure panchanama (Exh.36). His version purports to show that the appellant also informed him that P.W. Naresh had assaulted him and had caused head injury by means of a stick. There is no medical evidence to show that the appellant had received any significant injury. Nor the investigation gave any corroboration to his such complaint. Moreover, he did not raise right of private defence. Conversely, the prosecution has explained that the appellant was pushed against a wall and as such could have suffered some minor injury. The recitals of seizure panchanama (Exh.36) would show that the appellant had complained about assault on his head by P.W. Naresh by means of the stick which he had produced. P.W.11 PSI Shaikh Ayyub carried out the investigation. He sent the relevant articles to the Office of Chemical Analyzer. The clothes of P.W. Naresh and that of P.W. Sharda were found to be stained with blood. 11. The prosecution adduced evidence of P.W.12 Dr. Rajput in order to prove nature of injuries sustained by P.W.7 Naresh and P.W.8 Shardabai. According to P.W. Dr. Rajput, he noticed 8 incised wounds on the person of P.W. Shardabai when he examined her in the same noon at about 03.45 p.m. He corroborated the injury certificate (Exh.51). The injuries found on person of P.W. Shardabai were as stated below 1). Incised wound over left side of neck size 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. 2) Incised wound over left side of back in lumber region size 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. 3) Incised wound on left gluteal region (left buttock), size 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. 4) Incised wound on left infra mandibular region (Just below left cheek on the neck), size 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep. 5) Incised wound on left supra clavicular region (left side above chest) 2 c.m. x muscle deep. 6) Incised wound on left infra occipital region (back side of the head); 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. muscle deep. 7) Incised wound on left scapular region. (left side back), size 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep." 12. Then, three incised wounds were found on the person of P.W. Naresh. The injury certificate (Exh.52) is duly proved by P.W. Dr. Rajput. The three injuries were thus: "1) Incised wound over left lumber region (Left side on back above waist); size 7 c.m. x 5 c.m. x 4 c.m. 2) Incised wound over left side back size :: c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep. 3) Incised wound over left hand, size 3 c.m x 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m." 13. Cross-examination of P.W. Dr Rajput reveals that all the injuries found on the person of P.W. Shardabai were of simple nature and so also the injuries found on person of P.W, Naresh were also simple in nature. The oral account of the incident given by P.W. Naresh and P.W. Shardabai is, therefore, adequately corroborated by the medical evidence. Though P.W. Radhabai is closely related to them yet her version cannot be thrown over board due to such reason. The Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anil Singh, (1989 Cri.LJ. 88) has observed ; "of late this court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witness, or for some falsehood stated or improperly aided by witness. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come-forward to depose before the court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case as made out is otherwise true and acceptable." Needless to say that the prosecution case can not be dislodged for want of independent corroboration. There is no such requirement of Law. 14. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case as made out is otherwise true and acceptable." Needless to say that the prosecution case can not be dislodged for want of independent corroboration. There is no such requirement of Law. 14. In view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court, it is imperative that version of P.W. Radhabai, P.W. Naresh and P.W. Shardabai cannot be discarded only on the ground that independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. In my opinion, the learned trial court had rightly relied upon their versions. The learned trial court was right in holding that the appellant is author of the injuries caused to P.W. Naresh and P.W. Shardabai. The fact that the appellant went to the house of P.W. Asrabai with a knife and declared that P.W. Naresh shall be driven out and further that he had ample money, to save himself, are the circumstances which indicate that he desired to eliminate P.W. Naresh. The appellant struck blows of knife over back of P.W. Naresh and thereafter gave multiple blows of knife, one after another, on the person of P.W. Shardabai when she had fallen on his person to save his life. The learned trial court has considered the relevant aspects. The multiple injuries inflicted by giving successive blows and the preparation made by the appellant to mount assault on P.W. Naresh are enough to disclose his intention. It is proved that he intended to eliminate P.W. Naresh in the relevant noon. In case of Vas ant Virthu Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997(2) Crimes 539 : [1997 ALL MR (Cri) 951]) this court has held that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a question of fact and not one of Law. The important thing to be borne in mind is the intention proved from the facts and circumstances and not the nature of injury sustained by the victim. Considering the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The important thing to be borne in mind is the intention proved from the facts and circumstances and not the nature of injury sustained by the victim. Considering the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel Shri. A. D. Sugdare for the appellant submits that the incident occurred before about 11 years and the appellant was a retired Police Head Constable at the relevant time. He further submits that the appellant is now aged about 69/70 years and a lenient view is warranted in as much as the incident is outcome of property dispute. The learned counsel Shri. Sugdare sought to rely upon observations in case of Tarak Nath Singh & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal (1997(4) Crimes 368 (S.C.) the Apex Court reduced sentence of imprisonment of one already undergone by the appellants having regard to particular facts and circumstance of that case Though, much time has elapsed in the process of hearing the present appeal and the appellant is aged about 66/70 years yet, too much, leniency is not warranted in the present case. The appellant used to reside at Beed and his matrimonial relations with P.W. Asrabai has come to an end. He had no business to visit the house and assault P.W. Naresh like a "Goonda" He being a retired Head Constable, it was expected of him that he will have regard to the Law. The image of the Police Department iI tarnished by such elements. Those who an supposed to maintain Law and order, if would take Law in their hands, the distance between criminals and such persons would be diminished Hence, those engaged in narrowing such gar need not be shown much sympathy. In m) opinion, having regard to present age of the appellant instead of the term of five years of substantive sentence it would be appropriate it the sentence is reduced to two years. 16. In the result, the appeal against order of conviction will have to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed but the substantive sentence is modified and instead of the sentence of 5 (five) years, the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and instead of fine of Rs. l ,000/- (Rs. 16. In the result, the appeal against order of conviction will have to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed but the substantive sentence is modified and instead of the sentence of 5 (five) years, the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and instead of fine of Rs. l ,000/- (Rs. One Thousand only), he shall pay fine of Rs.l0,000 /- (Rs.Ten Thousand only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The fine amount shall be deposited within 3 (three) weeks from the date of this order. The appellant shall surrender to the bail within 3 (three) weeks after receipt of the R. & P. by the trial court. 17. The R & P. shall be remitted to the trial court within 1 (One) week and compliance of this direction shall be reported to the court by the office. 18. The muddemal property articles shall be destroyed after the appeal/revision period is over. Appeal dismissed.