This is an criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.03.1999 passed by 10th Additional Ses­sion Judge, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 20/1999 related to case crime No. 100/1994 State v. Laxman Yadav under Sections 307, 324, IPC, P.S. Tarun, District Faizabad. By the im­pugned judgment and order, learned Session Judge hold guilty to the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sen­tenced him for 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment. Rs. 1,000/- out of the fine deposited was awarded as compensation to injured of the case named Bakaru. 2. As per prosecution case, in the night of 2/3.08.1994 when the injured Bakaru as usual was sleeping in front of kotha of his tube-well, at about 12.30 in the night accused Laxman Yadav having "gandasa" in his hand came there and started to give blow of "gandasa" on the body of the victim. He woke up and raised alarm and tried to save himself but accused had given several blows on his head, eye-brow and other parts of the body. Ram Nayak, Shyam Lal, Shiv Bahadur Verma etc. several persons assembled there. Accused was identified in the light of electric bulb hanging on the wall of kotha of tube-well and later on, he succeeded in escaping from there. 3. In the same night, a report was lodged at police station concerned and case was registered against the accused. After investigation in the case, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Magistrate for the offence under Sec­tion 307, IPC. Later on, the case was commit­ted to the Court of Session for his trial. 4. Charge was framed against the accused for his trial foHhe offence under Sections 307, 324, IPC but he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial. 5. On behalf of prosecution, PW-1 Bakaru informant injured of the case, PW-2 Ram Nayak, PW-3 Shyam Lal, PW-4 Shiv Bahadur Verma were examined as witnesses of the case. Sudhakar Pandey Inspector, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. PW-6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava examined the injuries of the victim. He had given details of injuries found by him on the body of the victim and proved injury report prepared by him. 6. Sudhakar Pandey Inspector, after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. PW-6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava examined the injuries of the victim. He had given details of injuries found by him on the body of the victim and proved injury report prepared by him. 6. In his statement under Section 313, CrPC, accused denied the correctness of the prosecution case and evidence and stated that he is falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. He further stated that his vision is very poor and he cannot see in the night. No litigation between him and informant is there. Informant lives to her in-laws house with his family. Severally he was rebuked for his mis­deeds. No defence evidence was adduced on his behalf. 7. After going through the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and State counsel and perusing the record by the im­pugned judgment and order, learned trial court held him guilty for the offence under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him as above. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, this ap­peal has been filed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 9. Accused is Dever's son of informant's mother-in-law which is not denied on behalf of the accused. It is also not disputed between parties that their house situated in neighbor­hood of each other. It was suggested to the informant on behalf of the accused in his on oath statement that some unknown person has inflicted injuries on his body and he was falsely implicated in the case which was de­nied by him. This shows that it is not dis­puted to the accused that injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim were there. Nowhere it is the case of the accused-appellant that these injuries were manufac­tured by the accused. In his oath statement PW-6 Dr. Hari Om Srivastava had given de­tails of Injuries found on the body of the vic­tim. He found five incised wound out of them four were in head region and one was on the back side of the hand. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were simple and in­flicted to the victim by some sharp edged weapon. Hari Om Srivastava had given de­tails of Injuries found on the body of the vic­tim. He found five incised wound out of them four were in head region and one was on the back side of the hand. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were simple and in­flicted to the victim by some sharp edged weapon. He has also not denied that these injuries might have been inflicted to him in the night of 2/3.08.1994 at about 12.00 o' clock by gandasa which supports the on oath version of victim. He further said that injury Nos. 3 and 4 were on vital party of the body of the victim and may be dangerous to his life if proper treatment not given to him. In­jured Bakaru had also stated in his oath state­ment that injuries on his body were exam­ined by the doctor. Three witnesses i.e. PW-2 Ram Nayak, PW-3 Shyam Lal and PW-4 Shiv Bahadur Verma stated that they saw in­juries on the body of the victim when they reached on the spot immediately after hear­ing hue and cry of the victim. Entry in G.D. about registration of case also supports the factum of injury on his body of injured. This all shows that injuries found by the doctor on the body of the victim and recorded by the doctor in injury report Exh.-Ka-6 were re­ceived by him in occurrence and also not de­nied on behalf of the accused. 10. As per prosecution case these injuries were inflicted by appellant on the body of the victim. He is named in the FIR. FIR was lodged promptly in the same night of the occurrence at 2.20 a.m. Distance of police sta­tion from the occurrence is shown 3 kilome­ters in the chak report. In the same night at about 4.00 a.m., injuries were examined by the doctor. In 1973 Supreme Court (Crimi­nal) 266; Nanhai v. State (sic), Hon'ble Apex Court held that where soon after the occur­rence, FIR is lodged at the police station, it is difficult to believe that a false story can be cooked up. Informant PW-1 in his oath state­ment has stated that he was sleeping outside of the tube-well below the chhappar and there was a light arrangement on the Kotha tube-well. Investigating Office while preparing the site plan had confirmed this fact that there was a light arrangement on the spot. Informant PW-1 in his oath state­ment has stated that he was sleeping outside of the tube-well below the chhappar and there was a light arrangement on the Kotha tube-well. Investigating Office while preparing the site plan had confirmed this fact that there was a light arrangement on the spot. Accused-appellant is not an unknown person to the informant. He is his near relative. Immedi­ately after the occurrence, three witnesses reached there and they have given facts in their statement what actually they have seen. They have not manipulated story that there are eye-witness of the occurrence. They sim­ply said that victim Bakaru had told them on the spot that Laxman Yadav had inflicted inju­ries to him. Learned AGA argued that this statement of witnesses has evidential value under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. In 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 419 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3883 ); Sukhar v. State in almost similar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said statements of PWs that victim have told them the name of the assailant was admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 11. It was argued on behalf of the accused that no motive has been attributed to the accused to cause injuries to the victim. It is the case of direct evidence against the accused, motive looses its importance in case of direct evidence. Injured himself has named him as an assailant. Even on flimsy grounds heinous offences like murder are committed. A hint is there in the FIR, that there is some prop­erty dispute. In his oath statement, informant stated that as there is no other issue except his wife of her father, so to share him that he should not get the property of his in-laws, he has committed this offence. He was intend­ing to kill him. In his statement under Sec­tion 313, CrPC, accused himself has admit­ted that informant was severally rebuked by him for his misdeeds. What were his mis­deeds, it is nowhere explained on his behalf. No evidence in defence was adduced on be­half of the accused. When it can be said that it is a case of no motive. On the other hand, it is to be seen why the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. What were his mis­deeds, it is nowhere explained on his behalf. No evidence in defence was adduced on be­half of the accused. When it can be said that it is a case of no motive. On the other hand, it is to be seen why the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. No sufficient cause has been shown on behalf of the accused, if he is not committed the offence, why informant has named him in the prompt FIR. Injuries on the body of the victim on vital part by sharp edged weapon were found. Accused himself sug­gested him that some unknown person has inflicted injury to him. It is not believable that leaving the actual culprit informant will falsely implicate his near relative in such a matter. Informant have another enmities, it is not said on behalf of accused. 12. From the above all discussions, con­sidering the evidence available on record, tak­ing into consideration the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and AGA on behalf of State and also going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, I find no reason to interfere on the finding of the trial court hold­ing guilty to the accused appellant of inflict­ing injuries to the informant by gandasa. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant ar­gued that accused is almost a blind person, he cannot see properly. He has no criminal history, although injuries are said on vital part of the body of the victim but no injury was found grievous by the doctor. If there would have been any intention of the accused to kill the informant only 1 or 2 blow of gandasa on his body were sufficient to commit his mur­der. No one was there to resist the accused. He was young man at that time and victim was sleeping when attack was made on him. This also shows that he was not intending to commit murder. It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that merely because victim has received injuries on the vital part of his body, it cannot necessarily be inferred that the intention of the accused was to cause the death. No injury was found by the doctor as such that it would have been sufficient to cause his death in normal cir­cumstances. No injury was found by the doctor as such that it would have been sufficient to cause his death in normal cir­cumstances. Intention of the accused could be gathered only from the injuries caused and not from the nature of injuries which might have been inflicted. Learned counsel further argued that during the trial, accused remained in jail about six months. He was not married. He is facing the trial from last 16 years. No such motive has been proved that he was in­tending to commit murder of the informant, so learned counsel for the appellant prayed for taking learend view in awarding sentence to him. Learned AGA argued that in inflict­ing injuries accused used heavy cutting weapon. Injuries were inflicted on vital part of body of victim. Several blows were given. This all shows his intention. Learned trial court had sentenced him for a term of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, six months additional im­prisonment. Seeing the facts and circum­stances of the case and considering above arguments sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be excessive. 14. Accordingly appeal of the accused ap­pellant for acquitting him from the charge of the offence under Section 307, IPC is dis­missed and order of conviction is hereby maintained, but the sentence awarded to him is reduced for a term of three years and sen­tence awarded for fine and in default of pay­ment of fine is maintained. Order for pay­ment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the victim is also maintained. 15. Interim bail allowed to the accused appellant is hereby cancelled. He is not present in the Court. Copy of the judgment be sent forthwith to the court concerned or summoning the accused and after taking him into custody to send him jail to serve out the sentence awarded. Learned trial court will send compliance report to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed.