JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 446-SB of 1998 filed by the accused Joginder Singh, Dharambir, Rattan Singh and Roshni Devi against the judgment dated 8.5.1998/order of sentence dated I3.5.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby he convicted and sentenced all these accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 326/34 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently as also the Criminal Revision No. 941 of 1998 moved by Roshan Lal seeking enhancement of sentence to life imprisonment along with compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. 2. The factual matrix is that on 7.8.1997, Roshan Lal made statement before Nar Singh ASI in the terms that he is an agriculturist. About 2-3 months prior to the occurrence, there was a dispute between him and his cousin Rattan Singh regarding the land, which was settled by the respectables by erecting a "Daul" (common ridge) between their land. On 6.8.1997, he along with his son Anil Kumar was asleep in front of his house. Around 11:00 P.M, Rattan Singh armed with gandasi came to him and by having woken him up told that he has obtained a demarcation report in his favour in collusion with patwari etc. He (Roshan Lal) showed his ignorance. Meanwhile, Joginder, Dharambir and Roshni duly armed with jellies and gandasis came over there. Dharambir delivered three gandasi blows on his left knee. Joginder dealt jelly blows on his nose and chest. Roshni gave jelly blow on his right thigh. Joginder delivered jelly blow, which rested on his forehead. Rattan Singh caused gandasi blow hitting him on his left thigh. On being raised alarm, his son Anil Kumar got up and his wife Kamla also came over there. Joginder dealt jelly blows on his nose and chest. Roshni gave jelly blow on his right thigh. Joginder delivered jelly blow, which rested on his forehead. Rattan Singh caused gandasi blow hitting him on his left thigh. On being raised alarm, his son Anil Kumar got up and his wife Kamla also came over there. They saved him from the clutches of the accused. Otherwise, they would have caused more injuries. On his statement, the formal FIR was registered. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. On commitment, the accused were charged under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The accused Rattan Singh and Roshni Devi were placed in column No. 2 of the final report. On being allowed an application moved under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code, they were too summoned to face trial along with their co-accused. Thus, the accused Rattan Singh as well as Roshni Devi were also charged under the afore-referred Sections to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1 Roshan Lal injured, PW2 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Arora, PW3 Dr. A.K. Gupta, PW4 P.S. Hooda Inspector, PW5 Heera Lal retired Inspector, PW6 Radhey Shyam Draftsman, PW7 Siri Pal Constable, PW8 Mukat Ram Head Constable, PW9 Mahender Singh, Head Constable, PW 10 Harish Kumar Constable, PW 11 Anil Kumar, PW 12 Rattan Lal ASI and closed its evidence by tendering Ex.PT, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and by giving up Kamla Devi, Satbir Singh, Om Parkash and Nar Singh being unnecessary. 4. When examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They did not adduce evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused as noticed at the outset. They did not adduce evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they have preferred this appeal, whereas the complainant Roshan Lal being aggrieved with the inadequacy of sentence inflicted upon the appellants by the learned trial Court, has moved the above referred revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 6. On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that there was no source of light at the scene of crime at the time of occurrence and the version now being put forward is that there was electric light, which is a material improvement. It is further argued that Rattan Singh as well as Roshni Devi appellants were found innocent during investigation as their presence at the time of occurrence was found unbelievable. Furthermore, no independent witness has been cited or examined in support of the prosecution version. The genesis of the occurrence has also been suppressed. 7. To tide over these submissions, the learned State Counsel canvassed at the bar that the learned trial Court has evaluated the prosecution evidence in a manner as provided by law and that being so, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. 8. I have well considered the rival contentions. It is in the cross- examination of Roshan Lal injured PW1 that "there are about 15/20 houses in my street in which my house opens. About 15/20 persons were sleeping on the cots in the street. It is correct to suggest that it is a common street. Again said, there was street light in the village as three bulbs have been fixed on the poles and one bulb of my house was on at that time." The house of this injured being situated in the street, by all probabilities, some arrangement to illuminate the street in the night might have been made. So, the above evidence regarding the source of light cannot be brushed aside. A glance through the cross-examination of this witness, would reveal that he has withstood the test of cross-examination successfully. So, the above evidence regarding the source of light cannot be brushed aside. A glance through the cross-examination of this witness, would reveal that he has withstood the test of cross-examination successfully. Arguendo, no infirmity worth the name could be referred from his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is also in his cross-examination that "I received all the injuries while lying on the cot. The blood was lying on the ground near the cot. I had fallen from the cot, when the accused left the scene." The presence of the blood near the cot of this injured go a long way in establishing the place of occurrence. So, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the appellants to contend that the origin of occurrence has been suppressed. It is also in the cross-examination of this witness that "the land was demarcated by me about 2/3 years back prior to the occurrence. The "Daul" (boundary) remained at the same spot after the demarcation by patwari till 2/3 days prior to the occurrence. 2/3 days prior to the occurrence, the accused has shifted the "Daul" towards my side." This evidence speaks volumes of the motive for the appellants to cause injuries to this witness. As is borne out from the testimony of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Arora, PW2 as many as 8 injuries were found on the body of Roshan Lal injured. Of these, injury No. 1 was a penetrating wound over the front of chest and the air was gushing in and out of the wound. Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4 were also incised wound. Injuries No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were swelling on the knees. It is in the evidence of this Doctor that injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life. This being a penetrating wound over the front of chest upper part near the sternum particularly, when the air was gushing in and out of the wound, legitimately and by all reasonableness could be described to be dangerous to life. This injury was on a very sensitive and vital part of the body. This being a penetrating wound over the front of chest upper part near the sternum particularly, when the air was gushing in and out of the wound, legitimately and by all reasonableness could be described to be dangerous to life. This injury was on a very sensitive and vital part of the body. At this juncture, on behalf of the appellants, it has been argued that it is in the cross- examination of the aforesaid Doctor that "Injury No. 1 on the person of injured is not possible by a jelly shown in sketch Ex.D1 because it has got two sharp pointed nails and if it is being hit by force at the seat of injury No. 1, then simultaneously second injury must be there, which I am deposing on the basis of the gap of two nails of the jelly as shown in the sketch." This opinion evidence nullify the prosecution version that injury No. 1 was caused with jelly. This contention does not find favour with me. Ostensibly, this opinion has been given without looking at the weapon itself and is based merely on the rough sketch. To crown it all, it is mere opinionated evidence. In re: Main Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(2) Apex Criminal 613 , the Apex Court has ruled that "opinion of the Doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. On the other hand, his evidence is liable to be sifted, analysed and tested, in the same manner as that of any other witness." In the case in hand, learned counsel for the appellants has made an endeavour to make much capital out of the above extracted cross-examination of the Doctor. This opinionated evidence when looked in the background of the ocular evidence, pales into insignificance as the weapon of offence in fact as already noticed was not shown to him. So, this evidence cannot be given precedence over the ocular account. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. On appraisal of the entire prosecution evidence, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the learned trial Court. Consequently, conviction is upheld. 9. At this juncture, Mr. So, this evidence cannot be given precedence over the ocular account. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. On appraisal of the entire prosecution evidence, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the learned trial Court. Consequently, conviction is upheld. 9. At this juncture, Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate appearing on behalf of Roshan Lal injured-revisionist submitted that the revision - petitioner is very much present in the Court and he says that he is not interested in the enhancement of the sentence provided he is compensated in terms of money. As per the custody certificate, Joginder Singh - appellant to whom the injury punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is attributed, has undergone 9 months and 18 days, Dharambir - appellant has undergone 3 months and 5 days and Roshni Devi has undergone 23 days of the actual sentence, though Rattan Singh undeniably has breathed his last during pendency of the appeal. The surviving appellants have been facing the agony of trial since, 1997 meaning thereby, this incident is more than 11 years old. Therefore, taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of Joginder Singh, Dharambir and Roshni Devi is reduced to the already undergone to the stated extent. However, the fine imposed by the lrned trial Court upon Joginder Singh appellant is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and that of Dharambir and Roshni Devi is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively. These appellants shall deposit the difference of fine within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which, their appeal in its entirety shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit, the amount of fine shall be disbursed to the injured-revisionist - Roshan Lal son of Vijay Ram, Agriculturist) resident of Ladwa. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 446-SB of 1998 and Criminal Revision No. 941 of 1998 are disposed of. Order accordingly.