Judgment : BANERJEE, J. (1) ON September 6, 1982 at about 11 p. m. in the night one Kashem Sekh was sleeping on the roof of his shallow pump room. He was suddenly attacked by the accused, namely, Mongal Das, Krishna singh and Prabir Mondal. They attacked him with sharp weapon said to be one big knife. The victim tried to resist them and in the process he received injury in his left palm and cheek. He was taken to the hospital by the villagers. He was treated there. In the next morning with the help of the villagers he lodged a diary with the police station. Accordingly, police started investigation and arrested the accused. The accused faced trial after charges being framed. Ultimately the accused were sentenced under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years together with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. (2) HENCE this appeal by the accused. (3) MR. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, took us to the deposition to point out the discrepancy. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya if the victim was facing the sky as came out in evidence it was not possible for him to identify the accused since they were facing the victim when there was no sufficient light except moonlight. (4) MR. Bhattacharyya further contended that whether the weapon used for offence was seized by the police from the place of occurrence or whether it was handed over by the accused to the police at the police station, is not clear and discrepancy is apparent on the face of the evidence. (5) WE have carefully perused the deposition. We have also perused the judgment. There was no eye-witness for the incident. The victim consistently deposed that he was attacked by the accused with a big knife. He tried to resist them and in the process he received injury in his palm. To resist someone who is going to attack with weapon as a natural consequence the victim would raise his hand to protect him. If the weapon is a sharp weapon he is bound to sustain injury in his palm and other parts of his hands. He tried to resist them and in the process he received injury in his palm. To resist someone who is going to attack with weapon as a natural consequence the victim would raise his hand to protect him. If the weapon is a sharp weapon he is bound to sustain injury in his palm and other parts of his hands. Since he was lying the injury at his cheek is also normal as the distance between him and the accused was not much as came out in the evidence. The moment he could open his mouth he shouted and raised alarm. Santi Bibi, P. W. 3 rushed to the spot and found people fleeing away. Others joined Santi Bibi. Subsequently they took the victim to the hospital. Ultimately they helped the victim to lodge a diary on the next day. Accused were known to the victim. The were neighbors. Hence it was not difficult for him to identify them in moonlit night. (6) WE do not find any abnormality in the sequence of event so came out in evidence through prosecution. The discrepancies pointed out by Mr. Bhattacharyya, in our view, are minor. The incident was proved. Since there was no eye-witness the circumstantial evidence particularly the evidence of the victim would conclusively show that the accused were involved in the incident. (7) MR. Bhattacharyya also took us to the evidence of the Doctor being the P. W. 7. He contended that the victim did not make any statement before the Doctor as to how the incident happened. The incident happened in 1982. The doctor adduced evidence in July, 1987 after a period of five years. He corroborated what he opined in his medical report on the same being produced in evidence. There is no cross-examination on this issue by the defence. Hence we are not sure whether the victim actually told about the incident to the Doctor or not. We, however, observe that such omission in evidence would not warrant acquittal of the accused when the incident was proved through other witnesses. (8) THE appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed. (9) THE judgment and order of the Court below is affirmed. (10) THE surety is directed to produce the accused before the Court below. (11) A copy of the judgment along with the records be sent down to the Court below at once.