JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. The Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2004 has been filed by the aforesaid five appellants against the judgment dated 26.3.2004 and sentence dated 29.3.2004 passed in S.T. No. 76 of 2002/ 126 of 2003 by Sri Jaiprakash Narayan Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC.-II, Bokaro, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 147/448/342/323/307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.1. for one year for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C., R.1. for one year for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C., R.1. for six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., R.1. for six months for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and they have been further sentenced to undergo R.I., for seven years for the offence under Sections 307/149 I.P.C. They have been also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/each, in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to serve simple imprisonment for one month. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2006 has been preferred by the appellant Inder Gope against the aforesaid judgment whereby he has been convicted under Sections 148/448/326 and 307 I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to undergo R.1. for ten years for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and to undergo R.1. for two years for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and further R.1. for one year for the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. He has been further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to serve simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to serve simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the fardbeyan of the informant, who is the victim himself namely Anil Goswami has been recorded at Nilam Nursing Home, Jodadih More, Chas; wherein he has stated that when he came back to his house at 5.30 P.M. on 13.10.2000 after the rendition of Laxmi Puja, at that time, the accused persons namely Inder Gope, Dhaneshwar Gope, Kharu Gope, Gautam Gope, Jangru Gope, Hari Gope had suddenly entered into his house, caught him and forcibly dragged him into their house and after that Dhaneshwar Gope, Gautam Gope, Jangru Gope, Kharu Gope and Hari Gope with held him and Inder Gope with the intention to kill, assaulted him with a Katra (a sharp cutting weapon), as a result of which his left hand was cut fully and only the skin remained intact by which his hand was hanging. The informant screamed for help and his family members wanted to save him but they were threatened by the accused persons with dire consequences. On this fardbeyan, a case was registered against the aforesaid accused persons and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against all of them. Thereafter, charges for the offence under Sections 148/323/307/448 I.P.C. were framed against the accused Inder Gope and in respect of other accused persons, charges for the offence under Sections 147/342/34323/307/149 and 448 I.P.C. were framed. 4. Defence of the accused persons was that they have been implicated in this case falsely, the informant himself is a criminal and he is involved in several criminal cases, Further defence of the accused persons was that the informant of this case had kept the wife of Inder Gope namely Shanti Devi as his concubine which was objected by the accused Inder Gope and for that a Matrimonial case was lodged for separation between Inder Gope and his wife in which the informant has given evidence in favour of the wife of Inder Gope. Similarly, another case was lodged for the offence under Section 497 I.P.C. against the informant in this regard and ultimately, the informant has been convicted in the said case and due to this enmity, the informant has filed this case against the aforesaid accused persons. 5. Similarly, another case was lodged for the offence under Section 497 I.P.C. against the informant in this regard and ultimately, the informant has been convicted in the said case and due to this enmity, the informant has filed this case against the aforesaid accused persons. 5. The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. The defence has also examined two witnesses. P.W. 3 is the informant, the victim himself, P.W. 6 is 1.0., P.W. 7 is Doctor who has examined the injured and treated him in the Nursing Home. P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence and P. W. 11 is Tent owner. 6. Mr. 8.M. Tripathy, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, submited that there is vital contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and also regarding the holding of weapons by the accused persons. The actual manner of the occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. He has further submitted that though the evidence in respect of the weapon in the hand of Inder Gope is consistent but in respect of other accused persons there are vital contradictions. He has further argued that though a number of witnesses have claimed themselves as eye witness of the alleged occurrence but the evidence on record shows that most of them have not seen any of the appellants assaulting the victim. 7. Mr. Tripathy submits that the presence of Kharu Gope (the appellant no. 2) at the place of occurrence is quite doubtful as P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 have not stated about Kharu Gope that he was also present alongwith the other co-accused at the place of occurrence. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove its case against him. He should be given at least the benefit of doubt. It is further submitted that though Kharu was not present at the place of occurrence but as because he is working in B.C.C.L., the informant has mentioned his name and implicated him in this case with a view to take revenge so that he may loose his service. 8. He should be given at least the benefit of doubt. It is further submitted that though Kharu was not present at the place of occurrence but as because he is working in B.C.C.L., the informant has mentioned his name and implicated him in this case with a view to take revenge so that he may loose his service. 8. Now from perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that the accused persons had entered into the house and forcibly carried the informant to their own house. Thereafter, he has stated that the accused persons standing outside the house were holding arms in their hands and Inder Gope had given a blow by Katra on the left hand of his brother by which his left hand was cut and it remained connected by the skin only hanging. But he has stated that he had not come out from his house rather he saw the occurrence from the roof of his house. The informant (the victim) has very specifically stated in his fardbayan and in his evidence also that he was taken by the accused persons in the room of Inder Gope. Thus, it is not possible for P.W. 1 to see the occurrence from the roof of another house, which is on the other side of the road in the evening hour. Therefore, at best it can be said that he has seen the part of the occurrence to the extent regarding criminal house trespass and wrongful confinement but not the assault. 9. P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that when he returned from Chas at about 5.00 P.M. on that very day and reached near the road of the village, he saw that Anil Goswami was lying whose hand was cut and attached with the skin only and he was asking for some water. The P.W. 2 provided water to him and thereafter he rushed towards the house of the informant. Therefore, he has not seen any part of the alleged occurrence. 10. From the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12, I find that they have supported the part of the occurrence as they have stated that Anil entered into his house and thereafter what happened they, had not seen, only in the next morning they came to know about the occurrence. 11. 10. From the evidence of P.Ws. 11 and 12, I find that they have supported the part of the occurrence as they have stated that Anil entered into his house and thereafter what happened they, had not seen, only in the next morning they came to know about the occurrence. 11. After scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses carefully, I find that all the witnesses have supported the part of the prosecution case to the extent that the accused persons have dragged the inform- c ant (the victim) to the house of Inder Gope Admittedly some of the witnesses have not mentioned about the presence of Kharu Gope in the group of the aforesaid persons at the time of alleged occurrence. Therefore, his presence at the P.O. is very doubtful. 12. The evidence P.W. 3, who is the victim, is most important. After considering his evidence, I find that he is the only witness to the occurrence which occurred at the house of Inder Gope and he has supported his version in his evidence mentioned in the F.I.R. and also supported the prosecution case. No doubt, there are some contradictions regarding the holding of weapons by the accused persons and also the manner of the occurrence but he has proved that he was taken by the accused persons to the house of Inder Gope and thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons had caught hold of him and Inder Gope cut his left hand by one blow of Katra. 13. I find from the evidence of Doctor P.W. 7 who has stated the left arm of the victim was fully amputed and hanging only by a small tag of skin. He has further stated that the nature of this injury was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Thus, the evidence of Doctor also corroborates the injury as stated by P.W. 3 the victim. The Doctor has further stated in his evidence that the other injury is abrasion which is simple in nature. 14. The learned counsel for the informant Mr. R.S.P. Sah submits that the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case though there are some minor contradictions but that does not weigh much. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the appellant accused persons have been rightly convicted by the trial court. 15. 14. The learned counsel for the informant Mr. R.S.P. Sah submits that the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case though there are some minor contradictions but that does not weigh much. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the appellant accused persons have been rightly convicted by the trial court. 15. Thus, after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses include in the victim and the statement of the Doctor, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge• under Sections 147/448/342/323, 307/149 I.P.C. against Dhaneshwar Gope, Hari Gope, Jangru Gope, Gautam Gope (appellants in Criminal No. 624 of 2004). Similarly the prosecution has also proved the charge under Sections 148/448/326 and 307 I.P.C. against Inder Gope, the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2004. 16. As the presence of appellant no. 2 Kharu Gope in Criminal Appgal No. 624 of 2004 at the place of occurrence is not proved as such, in my opinion he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, I acquit him from the charges framed against him and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to him by the trial court. As the appellant No. 2 Kharu Gope is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 17. Mr. Tripathy lastly submits that Inder Gope (sole appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 646 of 2004) is in jail custody from 26.3.2004 i.e. more than five and half years and at present he is aged about sixty six years. He has cited a case of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009)4 S.C.C. Page-26, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram and Others, in which the accused persons chopped of the lower part of the left leg (1/3rd of the leg) of the victim and in such situation the Apex Court has confirmed the sentence awarded by the trial court i.e. R.1. for five years with fine for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and R.1. for six months for the offence under Sections 149 and 148 I.P.C. Considering the view of the Apex Court taken in the aforementioned case, and considering the age of the appellant Inder Gape i.e. more than sixty five years, I also feel that R.1. for six years with fine for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, instead of R.1. for six years with fine for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, instead of R.1. for ten years, I modify the said sentence and reduce it to R.1. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/(ten thousand). Accordingly, I confirm the conviction and modify the sentences to the extent as mentioned above. Thus, the Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2004 is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of sentences so awarded by the trial court. I further direct the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine amount i.e. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) in the trial court within a period of two months from the date of this order and in default, the convict will further serve two years imprisonment. If the appellant deposits the aforesaid amount in the trial court, the trial court will pay the said amount to the informant (victim) of this case. 18. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above and taking overall view of the matter, I reduce the sentence awarded to the main accused Inder Gope, sole appellant of the Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2004 from rigorous imprisonment of ten years to R.1. of six years. I feel i1 essential to keep the harmony in proportion of sentence for the ends of justice following the well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that "each case must be analyzed and appropriateness of punishment should be determined on a case to case basis". Therefore, I reduce the sentence of seven years R.1. awarded by the trial court to the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2004 namely: (1) Dhaneshwar Gope, (2) Gautam Gope, (3) Jangru Gope, (4) Hari Gope to R.1. of four years considering the fact that there is only one abrasion on the person of the victim other than the grievous injury given by Inder Gope. It is needless to say that the period of detention undergone by the appellants shall be set off against sentence of imprisonment according to Section 428 Cr.P.C. As the aforesaid four appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2004 are on bail, their bail bonds are here by cancelled and they are directed to serve out their remaining part of the sentence. 19. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2004 is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence as mentioned in paragraph no. 17 of this judgment. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 2004 is concerned, the appellant NO.2 namely Kharu Gope is allowed and acquitted and the said appeal for other appellants i.e. Apppellant No. (1) Dhaneshwar Gope, (3) Gautam Gope, (4) Jangru Gope, and (5) Hari Gope is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentences awarded to them by the trial court.