JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal. J.:- This judgment of mine shall dispose of Crl.A. No.328-SB of 1996 and Crl.R.No. 390 of 1996. 2. Out of the two accused, Gurmit Kaur was acquitted whereas Jit Singh was convicted under Section 307,455 IPC read with Section 323 IPC, for causing injuries to Baldev Dass which resulted into deprivation of his eye sight and paralysis of the arm. 3. The prosecution allegations as essential for the disposal of this appeal are that Baldev Dass was the owner of Dera parshotam Dass situated at village Khiala Kalan. At about 6-30 p.m. on 19.3.1988, he along with his wife Sukhwinder Kaur and their infant son was present in the Dera. At that time Jit Singh accused armed with a Ghop shaped iron dang (iron rod), and Gurmit Kaur empty handed tress passed into the Dera. Gurmit Kaur exhorted her husband to murder Baldev Dass and his family. In the meantime, Jit Singh inflicted an iron rod blow on the head and other blows above the ear and on the right side of his head. Resultantly, he fell down, even thereafter, Jeet Singh inflicted another blow, which hit his left hand. When the accused tried to chase Sukhwinder Kaur, she raised hue and cry ‘’Mar dita Mar dita” which attracted Wazir Singh (now won over and appeared as DW) came at the rescue of Baldev Dass. 4. Motive behind the occurrence is that the accused persons were tethering their cattle in the dera of Baldev Dass. But latter dissuaded them from doing so and to prevent them, he had raised fencing of prickly bushes around his dera. 5. Sukhwinder Kaur shifted the deceased to Civil Hospital, Mansa and went to inform her father and brother of the injured. Ultimately, on 22.3.1988, she accompanied by her father and Teja Singh elder brother of the injured went to police station Mansa and got recorded her statement Ex. PK, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PK/2 was recorded at 3-30 p.m. 6. The medical officer of Civil Hospital, Mansa sent ruqa on 19.3.1988, regarding arrival of the injured in the hospital, at which ASI Shiv Shambu Nath PW6 reached there. On query, the Doctor vide his report Ex. PE/1 recorded at 9:30 p.m. certified that the injured was unfit to make statement. Similarly, on 20.3.1988, at about 7:50 a.m. on query of PW6, doctor repeated the same opinion. On query, the Doctor vide his report Ex. PE/1 recorded at 9:30 p.m. certified that the injured was unfit to make statement. Similarly, on 20.3.1988, at about 7:50 a.m. on query of PW6, doctor repeated the same opinion. Thereafter, Baldev Dass was shifted to C.M.C. Ludhiana, on the night intervening 20/21.3.1988. On 21.3.1988, a head constable, who was deputed by the Investigating Officer, again sought opinion regarding fitness of Baldev Dass to make the statement, then doctor vide his opinion dated 21.3.1988 at 2:35 a.m. opined that he was unfit to make statement. In the meantime, Sukhwinder Kaur had met the police and recorded her statement on the basis of which the formal FIR was registered. The investigation was commenced. The accused was arrested. The weapon of offence was recovered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation challan was presented. The accused was charged under Section 450,307 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. Jit Singh, inter alia, pleaded that on the day of occurrence, the Holy Guru Granth Sahib had been installed in the Dera of Baldev Dass but still Baldev Dass was indulging in tantrik activities and he also used to indulge in eve-teasing and take liquor in the Dera. He was dissuaded by Young Sikh Amritdhari boys from doing such activities. Baldev Dass was suspected that he was inciting the youth to raise protest. On the fateful day, when Baldev Dass was returning from the village after collecting the milk, some unknown persons inflicted injuries upon him. Sukhwinder Kaur was not present at the place of occurrence as she had gone to her parental village for delivering the child. Similarly, Gurmit Kaur pleaded his false implication in the case. She also stated that during investigation, she was found to be innocent. After examining Wazir Singh DW1 and Hardev Singh Dhaliwal DW2, closed their evidence. 8. Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal of Gurmit Kaur and conviction of Jit Singh. 9. Arguments’ heard and documents perused. 10. Both Baldev Dass as well as his wife Sukhwinder Kaur have closely depicted sequence of events in which the occurrence took place. Despite the scorching cross examination upon them, they withstood the test. 8. Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal of Gurmit Kaur and conviction of Jit Singh. 9. Arguments’ heard and documents perused. 10. Both Baldev Dass as well as his wife Sukhwinder Kaur have closely depicted sequence of events in which the occurrence took place. Despite the scorching cross examination upon them, they withstood the test. Minor discrepancies as pointed out by counsel for the appellant, do not, in any way, affect the substratum of the case. Wazir Singh an Independent witness, who had witnessed the occurrence, was won over and was examined by the accused in defence, which does not, in any way, falsify the prosecution version because there is a motive behind the commission of the crime. The injured witness, who had lost his eye sight and suffering from the paralysis in the occurrence would be the last person to replace the false persons by substituting the real culprits. The testimony of the injured witness stands corroborated by his wife, who was present at the time of occurrence in the evening hours of the day. Their testimonies stand further corroborated by Dr. H.S: Sandhu, PW1, who medico legally examined Baldev Dass within two hours in Civil Hospital, Mansa, on 19.3.1988, at about 8:30 p.m. On the same day, he observed the following injuries on his person, which are as under:- Injuries 1. Swelling 10x6 cms present on the right side of the head. It extends from the upper end of the right ear goes upwards and forward along the hair margin upto 3cms lateral to the mid line in the central part of the swelling. There was bruise 3 cms x 2cms reddish in colour. Advised x-ray. Injury was kept under observation. 2. A bruise 3cms x 1cm was present on the left side of the forehead reddish in colour. Advised x-ray. 3. An abrasion 3/4x ½ cm was present in the dorsal aspect of the left hand. Reddish in colour”. 11. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observation and after x-ray. Injury No.3 was declared simple. Duration of the injuries was within six hours. He proved the injury report Ex. P A. Then he has testified that on query of the police Ex. PC he made his endorsement Ex. PC/1 at 9-35 p.m. On 19.3.1988, he opined that the injured was unfit to make statement. Again on the police query Ex. PD vide his endorsement Ex. Duration of the injuries was within six hours. He proved the injury report Ex. P A. Then he has testified that on query of the police Ex. PC he made his endorsement Ex. PC/1 at 9-35 p.m. On 19.3.1988, he opined that the injured was unfit to make statement. Again on the police query Ex. PD vide his endorsement Ex. PD/1, on 20.3.1988 he gave an opinion that the injured was unfit to make statement. The injured was referred to CMC hospital Ludhiana. On the police query Ex. PE he opined vide endorsement Ex. PE/1 that injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Baldev Dass could be caused by an iron rod. 12. Besides the aforesaid medical evidence, there is evidence of Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sarin, PW2 posted as Registrar in the Department of Neurosurgery of C.M.C Ludiana, who proved the treatment file of Baldev Dass and while identifying the identification mark as recorded in the file. On examination of Baldev Dass on 24.5.1988, he found him to have left upper limb monoparesis and blindness due to billateral optic atrophy. In this regard, he proved his certificate Ex. PF. He also proved the C. T. scan Ex. PG and further stated that Baldev Dass was having left extra dural haemotoma due to which he became blind. He also identified the signatures of Dr. Charian Vergheese, Registrar in the Department of Ophthalamology in the said hospital. 13. The counsel for the appellant has tried to dislodge the prosecution from the case, firstly on the ground that there is a serious delay of three days in lodging the FIR. In this regard it may be observed that occurrence having taken place on 19.3.1988 at 6:00 p.m. the injured was admitted in the Hospital at 8:30 p.m. Though, on receiving of the ruqa, the Investigating Officer PW6 had reached the hospital and moved the application for inquiry about fitness of the injured at 9:30 p.m., but he found that injured was unfit to make statement. It is in evidence that Sukhwinder Kaur wife of the injured after getting him admitted in the hospital had gone to inform her father and brother of her husband at village Kanakwal Chela and returned only on 22.3.1988 and got recorded her statement before SI Shiv Shambu Nath. It is in evidence that Sukhwinder Kaur wife of the injured after getting him admitted in the hospital had gone to inform her father and brother of her husband at village Kanakwal Chela and returned only on 22.3.1988 and got recorded her statement before SI Shiv Shambu Nath. Be that as it may, Sukhwinder Kaur may be present in the hospital by the side of her husband yet it has been often seen that it is always anxiety of the police to have first hand information from the injured about the manner of the occurrence and the person, who had caused the injuries in order to avoid any concoction of the prosecution version and false implication of the accused, but it was only upto 22.3.1988. When the injured Baldev Dass did not regain consciousness, police registered the case on the basis of the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur. 14. While taking the case from another angle, it is a matter of common experience that the people in this part of country, particularly the ladies, are more conscious for the well being of their husbands than to go to the police and record their statements. Same may have happened with Sukhwinder Kaur, whose husband had lost his eye sight and suffered serious injuries in his head, therefore, she being busy with her husband during the night, did not try to lodge the FIR but may have remained busy in attending her husband as there was no head of the family in the hospital. She in her statement disclosed that she left the hospital at 6:00 a.m to inform the brother of the husband and her father about the occurrence. 15. For the sake of argument, if testimony of Sukhwinder Kaur is excluded from consideration, even then, I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of solitary injured witness, who has given minute details of the time place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. Injured Baldev Dass burst out the facts which happened with him including that as to who caused the injuries and where he was inflicted injuries. He did not chose to involve any other person of the family of the accused except those, who had actually participated in the crime. The trial Court acquitted Gurmit Kaur, probably for the reasons that she did not cause any injury to the injured. He did not chose to involve any other person of the family of the accused except those, who had actually participated in the crime. The trial Court acquitted Gurmit Kaur, probably for the reasons that she did not cause any injury to the injured. At the same time, Baldev Dass has also not disclosed if any injury was caused by Gurmit Kaur. Baldev Dass was cross examined at length but nothing fruitful could be elicited by the defence counsel from his cross examination which could be helpful to create a dent in the prosecution case. As regards the presence of Sukhwinder Kaur, she has categorically stated that, she was present at the house. It has come in evidence that her parental village is at a distance of 40 K.ms. from the place of occurrence, therefore, at such late hours her presence could not be procured within such a short span of time. The medical record reveals that she got admitted the injured in the hospital at 8:30 p.m. Dr. H.S. Sandhu has categorically disclosed during the cross examination that Sukhwinder Kaur had attended the patient in his presence. 16. Thus, in view of the above discussion, I have no reason to discard the statement of solitary injured eye witness Baldev Dass even if Sukhwinder Kaur is not stated to be present at the time of occurrence. My view finds strengthened from the Apex Court judgments delivered in case. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi, AIR 2002 SC 1468, Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 552 and Chacko alias Aniyan Kunju and others v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2688. Wherein it was observed as under: Status of the injured eye witness is far better than that of a solitary eye witness. The reasons for placing reliance upon the injured eye witness are as under: (i) He is an affected person, having suffered damage to his body, he would not substitute false person in place of real culprit. (ii) He would be the last person to exonerate the assailant, who put his life in danger. (iii) His presence cannot be doubted as he himself suffered the injuries. (iv) He withstands the test cross examination. (v) He had the occasion to see his assailant. 17. (ii) He would be the last person to exonerate the assailant, who put his life in danger. (iii) His presence cannot be doubted as he himself suffered the injuries. (iv) He withstands the test cross examination. (v) He had the occasion to see his assailant. 17. Question of identity remains remote as Baldev Dass injured had the opportunity and occasion to see him while suffering injuries. This case is on better footing than that which is based on the solitary testimony of Injured eye witness as his testimony also stands supported by his wife Sukhwinder Kaur and also medical evidence. 18. As regards late examination of the injured by the Investigating Officer, it may be observed that if the Investigating Officer omitted to reach when he was in the hospital for 27/28 days or thereafter, then fault lay with Investigator and the injured could not be accused for that. No fault on the part of the Investigating Agency could be shouldered upon the injured and made a ground for extending benefit to the accused. The police officers of the country being enjoined with multifarious duties, when involved in other matters or in connection with VIP duties, do not make efforts to complete the investigation in the earlier cases. In any case, the earlier version had already come out from the mouth of Sukhwinder Kaur, on whose statement the case was registered, then late recording of the statement of the injured assumes insignificance. Sukhwinder Kaur has fully supported the prosecution case by depicting time, place, date and manner in which the occurrence had taken place. 19. As regards the medical evidence, it has been strongly contended that for non-examination of Dr. Rajesh K. Singh of C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, none of the injuries could be termed as grievous or dangerous to life. In this regard, it may be observed that I have the testimonies of two Doctors i.e. Dr. H.S. Sandhu PW1, who examined the injured Baldev Dass, and observed that injury No.3 was simple and injuries No.1 and 2 were kept under observation. Dr. Yogesh Sarin PW2 , who brought the patient file No. B-597098 regarding Baldev Dass has proved his certificate Ex. PF, stating that he found him to have left upper limb monoparesis and blindness due to billateral optic atrophy. PW2 Dr. Dr. Yogesh Sarin PW2 , who brought the patient file No. B-597098 regarding Baldev Dass has proved his certificate Ex. PF, stating that he found him to have left upper limb monoparesis and blindness due to billateral optic atrophy. PW2 Dr. Yogesh Sarin further stated that on examination of the city scan, Baldev Dass had left extra dural haemotoma due to which he became blind. He also proved the city scan Ex. PG. Notwithstanding the fact that certificate Ex. PH was issued by Dr. Rajesh K. Singh, who could not examined for the reasons that he had left the hospital and his last known address was not available, but this certificate has duly been proved by Dr. Yogesh Sarin, PW2. The evidence in the shape of certificate being the evidence of fact could not be excluded from consideration in the absence of the doctor. Injury report has duly been proved by Dr. H.S. Sandhu PW1. The condition of the injured and the impact of the injury has duly been proved by Dr. Yogesh Sarin, PW2; therefore, the opinion regarding the nature of injury could even be assessed from the injury statement as well report Ex. PF proved by Dr.Yogesh Sarin, PW2. The Courts are not supposed to sit as silent spectators and purely depend on the proved opinion and the Courts are also not powerless to look into the evidence before it and exercise its expertise to reach the conclusion. The presence of left extra haemotoma as well closed head injury as mentioned in the certificate Ex. PF could be sufficient to reach the conclusion that injuries were dangerous to life. 20. The motive of causing injuries is not far fetched as both the witnesses have consistently stated that the accused were prevented from use of the dera for tethering his cattle as such it was quite natural for the complainant to purchase annoyance of the accused. During the cross examination of PW3 and PW 4, it was not suggested that accused was not tethering the cattle in the dera or that injured Baldev Dass did not object to it and had not dissuaded him from doing so. During the cross examination of PW3 and PW 4, it was not suggested that accused was not tethering the cattle in the dera or that injured Baldev Dass did not object to it and had not dissuaded him from doing so. As regards the testimony of Wazir Singh DW1, though he supported the complainant party in the investigation but he at no point of time in between registration of case and when his statement was recorded in the Court, narrated the facts before any authority as stated by him in the Court and never agitated against the implication of the accused. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment in case Sukhwant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1973 Current Law Journal 629 P&H, wherein it was observed that the evidence of prosecution witness, who had been given up by the prosecution and subsequently had been examined as defence witness, can be discarded. No other point has been raised before me. The injuries caused at the hands of the accused have rendered the injured blind and also otherwise permanently disabled. Thus, the accused does not deserve to any leniency regarding quantum of sentence. For the forgoing reasons, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is also hereby dismissed. ————————