JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 2.3.1998/ order of sentence dated 5.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby he convicted and sentenced Digamber to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-or in default of payment of the same to further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 452 of IPC with a further direction that his substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He also convicted Banti accused under Section 324 and 452 of IPC and also convicted Jhamman and Devi Singh accused under Sections 323/452 of IPC but released Banti, Devi Singh and Jhamman on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. 2. As set up by the prosecution, Asharfi made statement in the terms that Hari Singh, Kishni, Sher Singh and Prehlad are the brothers of her husband Dhanmat. They all were residing separately. Sher Singh being employed at Faridabad had been residing with his family separately for the last 10 years. He and his son Digamber had a dispute regarding partition of some agricultural land amongst themselves and at that time, none was cultivating the disputed field. Her son by the name of Surjan was bringing grass in his stud buffalo drawn cart. When such cart was passing through the land of Jhamman son of Moti, his wife abused Surjan around 11:00 A.M. Surjan reached his house. Afterwards, she along with her son happened to be present in their Nohra (A large room or Hall). She was holding her grand-daughter in her lap. Sher Singh was resting on the cot. Prehlad was also in attendance. Digamber son of Sher Singh duly armed with Knife, Jhamman son of Moti carrying Jelly, Banti wife of Jhamman holding Darat (Sickle) entered their Nohra. Digamber accused dealt two knife blows in the stomach of Sher Singh. Banti accused delivered two darat blows, one on his left arm and the other one from its reverse side on the left hand. She (Asharfi) tried to intervene. On this, Jhamman accused gave a Jelly blow lathiwise on her head and left shoulder. Devi Singh accused also inflicted injuries with Jelly blows lathiwise on her person and her grand-daughter Neeraj. Banti accused delivered two darat blows, one on his left arm and the other one from its reverse side on the left hand. She (Asharfi) tried to intervene. On this, Jhamman accused gave a Jelly blow lathiwise on her head and left shoulder. Devi Singh accused also inflicted injuries with Jelly blows lathiwise on her person and her grand-daughter Neeraj. She (Asharfi) raised alarm, which attracted her sons Surjan and Sarup who saved them from the clutches of the accused persons. Kishni removed these injured persons to Palwal Hospital for treatment. Initially, the case was registered under Section 452/ 324/ 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Later on, the same was converted into the one under Section 307 of IPC. In due course, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused. 3. On commitment, the accused were charged under Sections 307, 323, 324, 452 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Pritam Singh ASI, PW2 Ram Parshad Head Constable, PW3 Ramesh Chand Constable, PW4 Sumer Singh, PW5 Asharfi complainant, PW6 Surjan, PW7 Amir Singh Sub Inspector, PW8 Dr. Banwari Lal, PW9 Karan Singh ASI, PW10 Sher Singh, PW11 Siri Dutt ASI, PW12 N.S. Bist Record Clerk AIIMS Hospital New Delhi, PW13 Dr. Sandeep Guleria and closed its evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. Accused Digamber has put forth that “I am innocent. In fact there was fight between women folk and accused Digamber, Devi Singh and Jhamman were not present. Accused were having long standing enmity with Sher Singh. Digamber accused is his son from his first wife and were having civil disputes. Devi Singh and Jhamman were siding with him in the civil disputes. Witnesses are related amongst interse. It was on account of old enmity that we have been falsely implicated.” 5. An identical plea has been adopted by his co-accused. In their defence, they examined DW1 Ramwati alias Shakuntla wife of Sher Singh. 6. Devi Singh and Jhamman were siding with him in the civil disputes. Witnesses are related amongst interse. It was on account of old enmity that we have been falsely implicated.” 5. An identical plea has been adopted by his co-accused. In their defence, they examined DW1 Ramwati alias Shakuntla wife of Sher Singh. 6. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced Digamber accused under Section 307 of IPC as well as 452 of IPC and also convicted his co-accused under Sections 323/324/452 of IPC but released them on probation of good conduct as noticed earlier. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 8. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Digamber strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in not taking into account the fact that this case is an outcome of an old family dispute which is going on between the parties ever since 1982 and is merely an effort on the part of the complainant party to corner the appellant and to exert pressure on the accused party to surrender their rights. He further puts that the appellant is putting up at Palwal and does not come to the village. That being so, by no stretch of imagination, he could be expected to come in the village and cause the injuries to the injured persons. 9. To tide over this submission, Mr. Amit Kaushik, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana maintained that there is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment as would require interference. 10. I have well considered these submissions. It is in the evidence of PW8 Dr. Banwari Lal Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palwal that “On 9.7.1991, I was posted as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Palval. On that date at 12.45 P.M., I medico legally examined Sher Singh s/o Pitamber, a male, aged about 55 years, r/o Yodupur and found the following injuries on his person: The injured was slightly drowsy and was sweating profusely. 1. Incised wound on the left side of the chest, 5” below the left nipple., 3” x 1” in size, obliquely placed. Inter-costal muscles were also cut. Fresh bleeding was present. There was corresponding cut on Kurta, which the injured was wearing. 1. Incised wound on the left side of the chest, 5” below the left nipple., 3” x 1” in size, obliquely placed. Inter-costal muscles were also cut. Fresh bleeding was present. There was corresponding cut on Kurta, which the injured was wearing. X-ray was advised. 2. Incised wound over the lower part of the sternum, 1½” x ½” in size. Fresh bleeding was present, horizontally placed. Corresponding cut was present on the Kurta. X-ray was advised. 3. Incised wound on the left upper arm on its lateral aspect on its middle part ¾” x ½” in size and the wound was skin deep. Corresponding cut was present on Kurta. 4. Incised wound on the left thumb on its lateral aspect, 2½ x ½” in size. The wound was skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present. 11. It is in his further evidence that “I gave opinion Ex.PN/2 to the effect that injuries No.1 and 2 on person of Sher Singh injured were dangerous to life.” It is in his cross-examination that injuries No.1 and 2 were in close proximity of each other on the person of Sher Singh. It was on the basis of the report Ex.PN/1 that the injuries were declared to be dangerous to life. There was piercing of the lever through and through. The injury was opined to be dangerous because lever is a vital organ.” 12. It is in the evidence of Sher Singh injured PW10 that “Accused Digamber gave me two knife blows on the left side of my chest. Jhamman gave me khot blows with the lathi-like end of the jelly five or seven times, biting me in the back, and on the sides while I was changing postures.” It is in the testimony of Asharfi PW5 that “Digamber accused was armed with a knife and gave a knife blow on the lower part of chest of his father Sher Singh. Jhamman was giving a jelly blow to Sher Singh, which did not hit Sher Singh and landed on the back of my head.” In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C also the accused Digamber has given the name of his father as Sher Singh. If he had not inflicted injuries in the abdomen of his father, in the common course of human conduct, his parents would have not attributed such injuries to him. If he had not inflicted injuries in the abdomen of his father, in the common course of human conduct, his parents would have not attributed such injuries to him. On appraisal of their ocular evidence coupled with the afore-quoted medical evidence, it emanates that the injury attributed to the appellant-accused – Digamber was on a very vital and sensitive part of the body. He had given repeated knife blows in the abdomen of his father. In his statutory statement, Digamber has come up with the plea that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Ramwati alias Shakuntala DW1 has deposed that “Injured Sher Singh, who is a witness in the present case is my husband.” As is borne out from the evidence of Ramwati (sic.), Digamber was born to her from the loins of Sher Singh. It is in her cross-examination that “Sher Singh had indulged in giving beatings to me in 1982 and never thereafter, because we are living separately.” This may be the reason for giving of evidence by her in favour of her son Digamber. The appellant has not adduced any cogent, convincing and clear evidence in support of his plea of alibi. There being no such evidence, it would be begging the question to hold that he did not participate in this occurrence. It is true that the accused is not to prove his defence with the same vigour with which, the prosecution is required to prove its case, but it is equally true that there should be some probability about the defence version. Herein such probability lacks in the testimony of DW1 Ramwati alias Shakuntala. Needless to say, the parties are interrelated. Mere fact that a witness is a relation of a victim is not sufficient to discard his testimony. The relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. The circumstance which all the more renders the prosecution version believable is that Sher Singh being the father, in no way, would have tendered false evidence against his own son. He has not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate his plea of Alibi though in view of Rajendra v. State of U.P. and another, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 378, the burden to prove plea of alibi lay upon the accused. He could prove this plea by leading evidence during trial. 13. He has not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate his plea of Alibi though in view of Rajendra v. State of U.P. and another, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 378, the burden to prove plea of alibi lay upon the accused. He could prove this plea by leading evidence during trial. 13. Of course, as emanates from the testimony of Ramwati Shakuntla DW1, there had been long-standing enmity due to litigation between her and her husband Sher Singh. The enmity is a double-edged weapon. It no often provides motive for false implication, but it also more often than not provides motive for making an attack. The fact that there is a long-standing enmity between the parties ipso-facto is not enough to reject the testimony of Asharfi as well as Sher Singh PWs as no other circumstance exist to render their evidence unworthy of credit. In these premises, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is jettisoned. 14. He further argued that no independent witness has been joined in this case in spite of the fact that the site of the alleged offence falls on village thoroughfare, which is inhabited by the villagers. Thus non-joining of such witness is a serious flaw in this case. This contention is untenable. In re: Darya Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328, it has been ruled as under:- “It is well known that in the villages where murders are committed as a result of factions existing in the village or in consequence of family feuds, independent villagers are generally reluctant to give evidence because they are afraid that giving evidence might invite the wrath of the assailants and expose them to very serious risks. It is quite true that it is the duty of a citizen to assist the prosecution by giving evidence and helping the administration of criminal law to bring the offender to book, but it would be wholly unrealistic to suggest that if the prosecution is not able to bring independent witnesses to the Court, because they are afraid to give evidence, that itself should be treated as an infirmity in the prosecution case so as to justify the defence contention that the evidence actually adduced should be disbelieved on that ground alone without examining its merits.” 15. Thus, even on examining the matter in the background of these observations, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out of hand or doubted, merely because of the failure on the part of the prosecution to produce any independent witness to the incident. Generally, people are insensitive, when a crime is committed even in their presence. In view of Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (Supplementary) Supreme Court Cases 241, the Court instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused. Reverting back to the instant case, it must not be forgotten that Sher Singh and Asharfi PWs were victims of the assault. They being the stamped witnesses, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. The Courts should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. 16. On analysing the entire evidence, it follows that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court calls for no interference. Consequently, the same is maintained. 17. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has undergone 20 days of the total sentence. The incident being very old, the sentence be reduced to the already undergone. If this submission is accepted, it will lead to miscarriage of justice in view of the number and nature of injuries ascribed to the appellant. Of course, regard being had to the fact that the occurrence took place way-back in 1991, the sentence inflicted under Section 307 of IPC is reduced from 5 years to 2 years while maintaining the fine as well as its default clause imposed under this Section. The sentence awarded under Section 452 of IPC is also maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad for taking necessary steps to send the appellant to the prison to serve the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.