JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in S.T. No.38/92, decided on 29.11.1995. 2. Appellant has been convicted under section 307 of IPC for causing life threatening injuries to Hemraj by means of sharp object and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default imprisonment for one year. Appellant has been further convicted under section 325 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ramdayal and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with. fine of Rs.300/- in default imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. According to prosecution, on 26.5.1991, about 8 O'clock at night at village Pachama, when complainant Ramdayal was in his field along with his brother Parmu alias Hemraj and wife Narbadibai, appellant Maujilal came there with a 'Tabal' in his hand. Appellant asked Ramdayal, whether he was purchasing his land from Bhole Baniya. Though Ramdayal denied, appellant gave him 'Tabal' blows on his scalp and scapular region. When his younger brother Parmu @ Hemraj tried to intervene, appellant gave him a 'Tabal' blow on his scalp. As a result, both Ramdayal and Parmu @ Hemraj got seriously injured and fell down. Injured Parmu @ Hemraj fell unconscious as a result of head injuries. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramdayal at police post Salichowka, on the basis of which an offence was registered at PS Gadarwara against the appellant and two co-accused persons and was investigated. Injured Ramdayal and Parmu @ Hemraj were sent for medical examination. The incised injury caused to Hemraj, which also resulted in depressed fracture of his right parietal bone, was reported to be dangerous to life. The injury caused to complainant Ramdayal in his clavicle region, being a fracture of clavicle bone, was also reported to be grievous in nature. Blood stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot. The spot map was also prepared. During investigation, 'Tabal' used in the commission of the offence was seized at the instance of the appellant. Appellant's father and brother namely, Halkeveer and Jhalkan were also said to be present and hiding at the time of occurrence. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Halkeveer and Jhalkan were prosecuted under sections 307, 447, 34 of IPC and were put to trial. 4. Appellant's father and brother namely, Halkeveer and Jhalkan were also said to be present and hiding at the time of occurrence. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Halkeveer and Jhalkan were prosecuted under sections 307, 447, 34 of IPC and were put to trial. 4. Appellant and co-accused persons denied the charges framed against them respectively under sections 307, 307/34 of IPC on two counts, and pleaded false implication. According to appellant, complainant Ramdayal had used force to his wife Ganeshibai and caught her hand with intent to outrage her modesty. The matter was reported to the police, as a result of which false case was foisted against the appellant and other co-accused persons. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted co-accused Halkeveer and Jhalkan of the charges under section 307/34 of IPC on both the counts, but found appellant Maujilal guilty under sections 307, 325 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of inconsistent and unreliable testimony of the partisan witnesses without independent corroboration, though no case under sections 307 and 325 of IPC was proved against him. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of appellant. 8. Perused the evidence on record. Complainant Ramdayal (PW2) deposed in his evidence that at the relevant time about 8 O'clock at night when he was in his field along with his wife and brother Hemraj, appellant Maujilal came there with a 'farsa' and assaulted him saying as to why he took his land on 'Batai'. According to Ramdayal (PW2), appellant Maujilal gave him three 'farsa' blows, two on his head and one on his right scapular region with its blunt side; appellant also gave a 'farsa' blow on the scalp of his brother, he had then lodged the report (Ex.P-1) at Police Post Salichowka. His report (Ex.P-1) was recorded by Sub-Inspector K.K. Narvare (PW 11) on 26.5.1991. 9. His report (Ex.P-1) was recorded by Sub-Inspector K.K. Narvare (PW 11) on 26.5.1991. 9. The evidence of Ramdayal (PW2) is substantially corroborated by the testimony of injured Hemraj (PW3), who also deposed that appellant Maujilal had asked his brother Ramdayal about taking of his land on 'Batai' and assaulted him by 'farsa' on his head and scapular region, and when he (Hemraj) tried to intervene, appellant gave 'farsa' blow on his scalp as well. Narbadibai (PWl), the wife of complainant Ramdayal also stated in her evidence that appellant Maujilal had assaulted her husband Ramdayal by 'farsa' on his scalp and also gave a 'farsa' blow on the scalp of Hemraj. 10. Medical evidence also lends corroboration to the ocular evidence. Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4), who examined Ramdayal (PW2) on 27.5.1991 at about 1 :30 p.m., found following injuries on his person: "(i) Incised injury of 2-1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep in the middle of anterior aspect of skull by hard and sharp object. (ii) Incised injury of 1" x 1/ 10" x scalp deep behind left ear on left parietal bone by hard and sharp object. (iii) Abrasion of I" x 1/10" irregular on lower aspect of right forearm by hard object. (iv) Small abrasion of 1/4" irregular on left thumb by hard object. (v) Contusion of 5" x 3" on left shoulder by hard object." 11. According to Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4), injuries found on the person of Ramdayal were of twelve hours duration and injuries No.1, 2, 3 and 4 were simple in nature and he advised X-ray for injury No.5. His MLC report (Ex.P-2) is also placed on record. 12. Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4) also examined injured Hemraj (PW3) on the same day and found following injuries on his person: "Incised injury of 2" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the right parietal bone caused by hard and sharp object. (fracture of skull bone)." . 13. According to Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4), the patient was unconscious and had vomits, his injuries were of the twelve hours duration and were dangerous to life. Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4) had referred him to District Hospital Narsinghpur for X-ray and further management. His medical report (Ex.P-3) is also placed on record. 14. It is also borne out from the evidence of Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4), the patient was unconscious and had vomits, his injuries were of the twelve hours duration and were dangerous to life. Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4) had referred him to District Hospital Narsinghpur for X-ray and further management. His medical report (Ex.P-3) is also placed on record. 14. It is also borne out from the evidence of Dr. S.K Maheshwari (PW 10) that upon X-ray examination of complainant Ramdayal (PW4), fracture of the lateral part of his left clavicle bone was found vide his report EX.P-10. Likewise, upon X-ray examination of the skull of injured Hemraj, depressed fracture in his right parietal bone was found vide his report EX.P-11. It is further evident from the testimony of Dr. Vishnu Prasad (PW9) and Dr. C.S. Shiv (PWI2) that injured Hemraj remained hospitalized in District Hospital from 27.5.1991 to 1.6.1991 and thereafter from 3.6.1991 to 18.6.1991 in Jabalpur Medical College on account of injuries inflicted on him. It is further evident from the testimony of these doctors that the left upper arm of injured had also paralyzed on account of injuries inflicted on him, which is also reflected from the report (Ex.P-9) given by Dr. Vishnu Prasad (PW9) and the summary sheet (Ex.P-18) prepared by Dr. C.S. Shiv (PW 12) on the basis of case sheet of patient Hemraj. 15. There are no reasons to doubt or discard the aforesaid medical evidence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the injuries found on the person of complainant Ramdayal (PW2) and injured Hemraj (PW3) were caused due to fall or otherwise than the act of the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the evidence of the so-called three eye-witnesses, namely, Ramdayal (PW2), Hemraj (PW3) and Narbadibai (PW1) is quite inconsistent with the FIR (Ex.P-1) and with their respective police statements, with which they were confronted, and thus not reliable. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that in the FIR (Ex.P-1) and in their respective police statements, the aforesaid witnesses stated that appellant Maujilal used a 'tabal' in assaulting Ramdayal and Hemraj, while in their deposition in the Court, they deposed about use of 'farsa' by the appellant. But such an inconsistency loses significance in view of the fact that the incident occurred about 8 O'clock at night and 'tabal' as well as 'farsa' are more or less same type of sharp cutting objects. 17. But such an inconsistency loses significance in view of the fact that the incident occurred about 8 O'clock at night and 'tabal' as well as 'farsa' are more or less same type of sharp cutting objects. 17. Moreover, it is clearly evident from the medical evidence that incised injuries caused by hard, sharp cutting object were found by the doctor both on the person of complainant Ramdayal (PW2) as well as on the person of injured Hemraj (PW3); therefore, it does not matter much whether injuries were caused by 'farsa' or 'tabal'. The fact remains that the sharp cutting object was used by the appellant in inflicting injuries on the person of complainant Ramdayal and injured Hemraj. Besides all the three eye-witnesses have uniformly deposed in their oral evidence the appellant had assaulted both Ramdayal (PW2) and Hemraj (PW3) by means of 'farsa'. Needless to emphasize that substantial evidence is the evidence given before the Court. More so, the evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be overthrown for such discrepancy, particularly when their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. 18. In fact, there are no reasons to doubt the veracity of the statements made against the appellant by Ramdayal (PW2) and Hemraj (PW3), who are injured eye-witnesses and their presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. Both of them have also deposed about the presence of Narbadibai, wife of Ramdayal (PW2), who was present on the place of occurrence, as their hut happened to be in the field. Although there are some exaggerations in the evidence of Narbadibai (PW1) regarding the act of co-accused persons and number of blows given by the appellant, but her evidence regarding assault by appellant Maujilal both on Ramdayal (PW2) and Hemraj (PW3) is quite clear and categorical and cannot be doubted. Although the aforesaid three eye-witnesses belong to same family, but their evidence cannot be discarded on that score. As reiterated by the apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2006 AIR SCW page 4143, the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related witness, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. 19. There was also no question of any mistaken identity as the appellant was already known to all the three eye-witnesses. 19. There was also no question of any mistaken identity as the appellant was already known to all the three eye-witnesses. The defence plea as well as the evidence of Ganeshibai (DW-1), the wife of the appellant, and faint plea of alibi taken by the appellant, which was rightly discarded by the trial Court, also did not shatter the ocular evidence, which remained substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, it was clearly established from the testimony of the injured eye-witnesses coupled with medical evidence that the appellant assaulted both Ramdayal (PW2) and Hemraj (PW3) by means of 'farsa' and inflicted injuries on their person as mentioned hereinabove. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant allegedly gave a single blow to injured Hemraj (PW3) and he had no intention to kill him, the quarrel occurred on the spur of moment, so, no case under section 307 of IPC was made out. However, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant sans merit. It is clearly evident from the testimony of complainant Ramdayal (PW2), Hemraj (PW3) and Narbadibai (PW1) that appellant had come to the place of complainant Ramdayal armed with a sharp edged weapon and he himself invited the quarrel and made an assault on him as well as on his brother Hemraj (PW3), who innocently tried to save his brother. It is thus, evident that appellant had come to the place of complainant with a planning. So, it cannot be said that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment or there was a sudden quarrel. It is further evident and established that appellant gave a blow by a sharp edge 1 weapon on the vital part like scalp of injured Hemraj with such force that it also caused a depressed fracture in his parietal bone. Not only this, the injury inflicted on the scalp of Hemraj (PW3) also had the effect, as medical evidence reveals, of paralyzing his left upper arm. The medical evidence in record also reveals that injured Hemraj was found unconscious and had to be treated and remained hospitalized for a period of more than went y one days. In view of the aforesaid facts, there are no reasons to doubt the opinion of Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4) that the injuries caused to -Hemraj were dangerous to life. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts, there are no reasons to doubt the opinion of Dr. O.P. Gupta (PW4) that the injuries caused to -Hemraj were dangerous to life. 21. Thus, when the appellant gave a forceful blow on the vital part like scalp of injured Hemraj by means of sharp edged weapon, it cannot be said that requisite intent was lacking. Even otherwise, the intention can be formed then and there on the spur of moment. In view of aforesaid facts, the conviction of appellant under section 307 of IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, does not suffer from any infirmity and deserves to be maintained. 22. The citation referred to by learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2005(11) MPWN 103=2005(3) MPLJ 21 (Gokul Singh v. State of M.P.), turned on peculiar and different set of facts of that case and is of no avail to appellant Maujilal in the instant case. 23. As discussed above, a fracture in the scapular region of complainant Ramdayal (PW2) was also found consequent to the assault made by the appellant, besides incised injuries on his head. Therefore, in view of evidence available on record, the conviction of appellant under section 325 of IPC for causing grievous injury to complainant Ramdayal also does not call for any interference. 24. As regards the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment nearly for thirteen months and the incident of the case occurred way back in the year 1991, he should not be sent back to jail after long lapse of time and his sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by him with some additional fine. However, considering the nature of injuries caused to Hemraj, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of thirteen months would not be justified for an offence under section 307 of IPC, yet considering the totality of circumstances and the fact that the incident of the case occurred in the year 1991, interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned sentence of imprisonment of five years awarded to the appellant under section 307 of IPC is reduced to a term of three years' rigorous imprisonment with an additional fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only). Three thousand only). But, in view of the incised injury caused to complainant Ramdayal on his head and a fracture in his scapular region, the impugned sentence of imprisonment for two years awarded to the appellant under section 325 of IPC with fine of Rs.300/- calls for no interference. 25. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the I appellant under sections 307 and 325 of IPC is maintained. The impugned sentence of imprisonment for two years awarded to the appellant with fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under section 325 is also maintained. The impugned sentence of imprisonment of five years awarded to the appellant under section 307 of IPC is, however, modified and reduced to the period of three years with an additional fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only), in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both substantive sentences of imprisonment of the appellant shall run concurrently. Needless to add that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be set off against his modified term of imprisonment. 26. The additional amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to injured Hemraj, as compensation for injuries caused to him. 27. Appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to his bail bonds to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.