Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.5.1998/order of sentence dated 25.5.1998 passed by the court of learned additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he convicted and sentenced Chanan singh, Naib Singh and Gurdev Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Sec.307 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. and in default of payment of fine the defaulters to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. each with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 7.9.1994 Sandhura Singh lodged a complaint stating that he is resident of village Rori and is an agriculturist. On 7.9.1994 at about 9.30 p. M. he was returning home after having purchased the medicines from the market. When he reached in front of the shop of Hem Raj, he noticed the accused Chanan Singh, Naib Singh and Gurdev singh grappling with his brother Hazura Singh. The accused Gurdev Singh had caught hold of his brother from his hair whereas his above mentioned co-accused were giving fist/slap blows on his brothers person. When he intervened to rescue his brother, meanwhile, Baldev Singh also came at the spot. The accused gurdev Singh and Naib Singh yelled that a lesson be taught for intervening physically. Thereafter, the accused Chanan Singh took out a sword and gave a blow in his abdomen. He (Sandhura Singh) fell down on the ground. The accused dragged him and continued giving fist blows. On being raised alarm, all the three accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. In fact, there was a dispute between Hazura Singh and the accused regarding appointment of a mahant in the gurdwara of the village. On the basis of this complaint, formal F. I. R. was registered. Sub Inspector Shivdan Singh prepared rough site plan showing place of the occurrence and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused. 2. Sub Inspector Shivdan Singh prepared rough site plan showing place of the occurrence and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused. 2. On commitment, the accused were charged under Sec.307/324 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined pw-1 Dr. Iqbal Singh, PW-2 Dr. Mohar Singh, PW-3 Dr. R. K. Bishnoi, PW-4 Inderjit singh Draftsman, PW-5 Sandhura Singh injured/complainant, PW-6 Hazura Singh injured-eye witness, PW-7 Shivdan Singh Investigator and closed its evidence by giving up Thandu Singh, Pritam Singh, Jeet singh, Roop Singh and Hari Singh as having been won over by the accused. 4. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. all the three accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. The accused Chanan Singh has put forth that there is a party faction in the village and some unknown persons had caused injuries to Sandhura Singh complainant from behind. He and his co-accused have been falsely challaned in this case by the police due to party faction. Moreover, Sandhura Singh complainant and his brother Hazura Singh are the persons of bad characters and they are involved in number of cases. They are of quarrelsome nature and have deposed falsely against him as well as his co-accused. The accused Naib Singh and Gurdev Singh adopted the similar plea. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Des Raj Constable and DW-2 Jagdish Chander mhc. 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 three accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction and sentence, they have preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants eloquently urged that at the fag end of his cross-examination Dr. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction and sentence, they have preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants eloquently urged that at the fag end of his cross-examination Dr. Mohar Singh PW-2 has testified that "injury on the lumber region was on back side and caused from behind" whereas according to pw-5 Sandhura Singh, the kirpan blow was plunged in his abdomen from front side by accused Chanan Singh Axiomatically, there is divergence between the medical opinion as well as the ocular account which gives an inkling that the occurrence was not witnessed by Hazura Singh, the alleged eye witness. This contention merits rejection. 6. The seat of injury being depicted by the skiagram Ex. PA/1 speaks volumes of the fact that this injury has been caused from the front side. Nay, where the eye witness account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities is not to be accepted as conclusive. In Mahmood and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007) 14 Supreme court Cases 16, the contention was raised that while according to the eye witnesses, all the four shots were fired from the gun from right side of the victim, wound 1 (wound of entry) was on the left side of the face and caused by a bullet. The Supreme Court held that " it is well settled that medical evidence is only an evidence of opinion and it is not conclusive and when oral evidence is found to be inconsistent with the medical opinion, the question of relying upon one or the other would depend the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. Ocular evidence, if otherwise acceptable has to be given importance over medical opinion. However, where the medical evidence totally improbabilises the ocular version, the same can be taken to be a factor to affect credibility of the prosecution version. " 7. Further in re: Main Pal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and others 2004 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 466 the apex Court ruled that opinion of the Doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word of what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. " 7. Further in re: Main Pal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and others 2004 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 466 the apex Court ruled that opinion of the Doctor cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be the last word of 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 witenss. Reverting back to the instant one, if the opinion tendered by Dr. Mohar singh (sic) in his cross-examination is looked in the background of the above quoted authorities, the same pointing to alternative possibility cannot be accepted as Pws Sandhura Singh injured as well Hazura Singh have rendered graphic description of the occurrence. The said medical opinion cannot be given precedence over their evidence being stamped witnesses. In re: Rai Singh Vs. State 1996 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 507 it has been held by the division Bench of Delhi High Court that the prosecution evidence does suffer from inconsistencies, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. Main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. Further in re:state of u. P. Vs. Krishan Gopal and another (1988)4 Supreme Court Cases 302 it has been laid down that "where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Importance and primacy should be given to the orality of the trial process. Eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the credit of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. Coming to the case in hand, the medical evidence when taken into account cumulatively, does not improbablise the ocular version given by Sandhura Singh as well as Hazura singh Pws. The skiagram referred to above also nullifies this contention. 8. Mr. Bipin Ghai further attacked the prosecution edifice by urging with full force that Hazura Singh PW being the brother of Sandhura PW, his testimony ought to be discredited and discarded and on doing so, we are left with the uncorroborated solitary and bald statement of Sandhura Singh, which proprio-vigore is not enough to sustain conviction. This contention does not find favour with me. As ruled in Ramlagan Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar 1973 (3) Supreme Court Cases 881 "where a person received injuries in the course of occurrence, there can be hardly any doubt regarding his presence at the spot. " In the present, of course, Hazura Singh is the brother of Sandhura Singh pw. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that as emanates from the evidence of Dr. Iqbal Singh PW-1 he (Hazura Singh) has also received injuries. Furthermore, the appellants had been fighting with Hazura Singh before the arrival of Sandhura Singh. To crown it all, it is an accredited rule of law that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In re:sarwan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab 1976 (4) Supreme Court Cases 369 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that "it is true that this witness is the brother of the wife of the deceased and was living with the deceased for quite a few years. But that by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of this witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true. " herein this case, Sandhura Singh and Hazura Singh Pws could not be shattered or shaken during their cross-examination, rather they stood like a rock. Their evidence being consistent, credible and creditworthy can be relied upon without any demur. The plea of the appellants that some unknown persons had inflicted injuries from behind being not substantiated by any evidence on record remains in the air. The defence evidence relates to the F. I. R. s registered against the complainant party. Their evidence being consistent, credible and creditworthy can be relied upon without any demur. The plea of the appellants that some unknown persons had inflicted injuries from behind being not substantiated by any evidence on record remains in the air. The defence evidence relates to the F. I. R. s registered against the complainant party. Those in no manner have any nexus with the present one. Their registration did not give a licence to the appellants to cause injuries to Sandhura Singh or his brother Hazura Singh. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. 9. Mr. Ghai has submitted that Chanan Singh appellant is 70 years of age by now. This incident being sufficiently old, the sentence of the appellants may be slashed to the already undergone. 10. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. 11. As per custody certificates, Chanan Singh appellant has undergone only 1 month and 13 days. If the sentence is reduced to this much, it will tantamount to mere flee bite pinch, which to my mind, would not serve the ends of justice. Of course, this occurrence is more than 15 years old. As recorded in his statutory statement, the appellant Chanan Singh was 60 years old as on 23.1.1998. The appellants Gurdev Singh and Naib Singh were 56 years and 31 years of age respectively at the time of their examination under Sec.313 cr. P. C. on 23.1.1998. As testified by Dr. Iqbal Singh PW-1, the intestines of sandhura Singh PW were visible. As per evidence tendered by Mohar Singh PW-2, he had operated upon the abdomen of Sandhura Singh PW. In view of these facts, the ends of justice shall be thwarted, if the sentence is reduced to the stated extent. However, taking into consideration the fact that this incident is more than 15 years old and the appellants have been facing agony of trial since 7.9.1994 their sentence under Sec.307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment each and the sentence under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 IPC is slashed to three months. However, taking into consideration the fact that this incident is more than 15 years old and the appellants have been facing agony of trial since 7.9.1994 their sentence under Sec.307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment each and the sentence under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 IPC is slashed to three months. The fine imposed by the trial Court under Section 307 read with Sec.34 I. P. C. upon Chanan Singh appellant is enhanced to rs.20,000/-, which shall be deposited by him in the trial Court within four months from today and if he defaulted to deposit this amount, he shall further undergo imprisonment for three months. On deposit, an amount of Rs.15,000/-shall be disbursed to Sandhura Singh PW. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court as also the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa who shall take necessary steps to send all the three appellants to prison for serving out the unexpired period of their respective sentences.