Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Sehore in s. T. No. 83/99 decided on 28. 9. 99. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 14. 2. 99 about 2 oclock in the noon, when complainant Hariprasad was returning to village phoolmogra alongwith his wife Sunder Bai and reached near Semaliya forest, appellant Rajendra attacked him by knife due to old enmity. Appellant Rajendra gave him three knife blows with intent to kill him and caused stab injuries in his back and abdominal area. Appellant was accompanied by co-accused Anokhelal Patwari at the time of occurrence, who was exhorting him to assault the complainant. As a result of injuries, complainant Hariprasad fell down. Upon hue and cry, his wife Sunder Bai, daughter-in-law Rekhabai, Fakirchand and mohan Singh Secretary etc. came there and took him to Sehore hospital, where the FIR of the incident in the form of Dehati Nalishi was recorded, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and the co-accused and was investigated. Complainant hariprasad (injured) was referred to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal for further treatment. During investigation, the knife used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Anokhelal was prosecuted under Section 307/34 of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT and the co-accused denied the charges under section 307, alternatively under Section 307/34 of IPC framed against them, and pleaded false implication. ( 5. ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, extended the benefit of doubt to co-accused Anokhelal and acquitted him of the charge under Section 307/34 of IPC, but found the appellant guilty under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to complainant Hariprasad by sharp edged weapon, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court gravely erred in relying upon the inconsistent and unreliable testimony of partisan witnesses despite discrepant medical evidence and erroneously convicted the appellant, though co-accused Anokhelal was acquitted on the same set of evidence. Alternatively, it was submitted that in view of the compromise effected between the complainant (injured) and the appellant as recorded vide order sheet dated 28. 1. 2009, lenient view in the matter of sentence should be taken. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant and sentence passed on him. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. Complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1) deposed in his evidence that on the day of occurrence when he was returning to village Phoolmogra from Napla-Khedi and reached near Semaliya Kuwan, appellant Rajendra emerged there and assaulted him by knife. According to complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1), appellant gave one knife blow on his intercostal space and other two knife blows on his abdominal region; he was then rushed to Sehore hospital, where he lodged the FIR (Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-1 ). As per version of complainant Hariprasad, he was referred to Hamidiya hospital, Bhopal, where he was operated upon. ( 9. ) COMPLAINANTs wife Sundar Bai (P. W-9), who was following her husband at the time of occurrence, as well as Fakirchand (P. W-2) have also corroborated this fact that appellant Rajendra had assaulted complainant Hariprasad by knife causing injuries in his intercostal space and abdominal region. ( 10. ) DR. T. N. Chaturvedi (P. W-3), who examined the complainant at District Hospital, Sehore, also found two stab injuries caused by hard and sharp object in his hypochondrium region and thorasic area below inferior angle of left scapula, which were of grievous nature, and he had referred the patient to Hamidiya Hospital, bhopal. ( 11. ) DR. Virendra Kumar Rathore (P. W-11), R. S. O Surgery, who treated complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1) and operated upon him at Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, also deposed that he found an incised wound of 1 cm x 0. 5 cm on his anterior chest wall 4th ICS left side lateral to the sternum up to the intercostal muscles, incised wound on right hypochondrium about 4 cm x 0. 5 cm on his anterior chest wall 4th ICS left side lateral to the sternum up to the intercostal muscles, incised wound on right hypochondrium about 4 cm x 0. 5 cm size up to the peritoneum, penetrating wound on the left side of lower back chest about 4 cm x 0. 5 cm size with air leak and surgical emphysema present, wound depth up to the chest cavity. According to Dr. Virendra Kumar rathore (P. W-11), there was a through and through tear in the spleen of 2" size over diaphragmatic surface of the spleen and 4" near the hilum, through and through tear on the left lobe of the liver above the superior and inferior surface size about 4" on the superior and 2" on the inferior surface, small haematoma in the transverse mesocolon, diaphragmatic tear about 2" on left side with palpable rib fracture. In the opinion of Dr. Virendra Kumar Rathore (P. W-11), injuries were dangerous to life and were caused by penetrating hard and sharp object. Medical report (Ex. P-12) given by him is also placed on record. ( 12. ) THERE are no cogent reasons to discard the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence. Despite cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve the basic version of complainant hariprasad (P. W-1) and the other two eyewitnesses, namely, fakirchand (P. W-2) and Sundar Bai (P. W-9) that appellant had assaulted complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1) by knife causing him injuries in left intercostal space and the abdominal region. It is also borne out from the evidence of Fakirchand (P. W-2), who is an independent witness, that complainants wife Sunder Bai (P. W-9) was also coming behind the complainant at the time of occurrence; therefore, her version that she also witnessed the incident cannot be doubted. There is also nothing in the evidence of P. W-2 Fakirchand so as to doubt or discard his evidence. More so, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence in as much as dr. T. N. Chaturvedi (P. W-3) found only two incised wounds on the person of the injured (P. W-1), whereas Dr. More so, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that there is inconsistency in the medical evidence in as much as dr. T. N. Chaturvedi (P. W-3) found only two incised wounds on the person of the injured (P. W-1), whereas Dr. Virendra Kumar Rathore (P. W-11) found three incised wounds on his person; but if one doctor omitted to notice any one injury over the person of the injured, the evidence of the other doctor, who treated the injured and also operated upon him, cannot be doubted or disbelieved. In fact, there are no reasons to discard the evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar Rathore (P. W-11), who made a detailed examination of complainant hariprasad (P. W-1) at Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, also treated him, operated upon him and gave a detailed report (Ex. P-12 ). There is also no inconsistency in the ocular and medical evidence. The ocular evidence is also entirely consistent, coherent and substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. ( 14. ) THE evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar Rathore (P. W-11)also reveals that the injuries caused to complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1) were grievous and life threatening. His evidence also indicates that the injuries caused to the complainant had penetrated into liver causing a through and through tear in the spleen. Therefore, it could not be doubted that the injuries caused to complainant hariprasad (P. W-1) were life threatening and had endangered his life. As such injuries caused to complainant Hariprasad (P. W-1) could well be termed as grievous hurt within the meaning of Clause 8 of Section 320 of IPC. Needless to point out that vide discharge card (Ex. P-2) of gandhi Medical College, Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal, complainant hariprasad remained hospitalized for more than twenty days for treatment of his injuries and thus he remained unable to follow his ordinary pursuit for the space of more than twenty days. ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the finding recorded by the trial court that appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to complainant hariprasad (P. W.-1) by knife cannot be faulted with. ( 16. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant on the same set of evidence, on which co-accused Anokhelal was acquitted. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the finding recorded by the trial court that appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to complainant hariprasad (P. W.-1) by knife cannot be faulted with. ( 16. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant on the same set of evidence, on which co-accused Anokhelal was acquitted. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant, however, has no merit, as the the trial court has extended the benefit of doubt to the co-accused in view of the shaky evidence against him. However, there is positive and dependable evidence available on record against the appellant to hold him guilty under Section 326 of IPC. Moreover, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Gorle S. Naidu V. State of A. P. reported in (2003) 12 SCC page 449 mere acquittal of large number of co-accused persons does not per se entitle others to acquittal; the court has a duty in such cases to separate the grain from the chaff. If after sieving the untruth or unacceptable portion of the evidence residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, there is no legal bar in convicting a person on the evidence, which has been primarily disbelieved vis-a-vis others. ( 17. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to complainant hariprasad, as recorded by the trial court, does not call for any interference in appeal and deserves to be affirmed. ( 18. ) AS regards the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the instant case was compromised between the complainant and the appellant, as reflected from the order sheet dated 28. 1. 2009, the factum of compromise should be considered in awarding the sentence to the appellant as held by the Apex Court in the case of Jetha Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 (9) SCC page-255. It was further submitted that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for eighteen days and the incident of the case is of the year 1999, the appellant should not be sent back to jail after such a long passage of time and in view of the compromise his sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by him with some additional amount of fine. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance in this behalf on division Bench decision of this Court reported in M. P. W. N. 1985 short note 336 (Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of M. P ). ( 19. ) CONSIDERING the submissions as advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the appellant has already undergone the imprisonment for eighteen days and incident of the case is as old as the year 1999, compromise has also taken place between the injured complainant and the appellant, interest of justice would be subserved, if the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with an additional fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only ). ( 20. ) APPEAL is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC, as recorded by the trial court is affirmed. However, the impugned sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him with an additional fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only), besides the fine already imposed by the trial court. Appellant shall pay the additional amount of fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) within three months from today, failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.