ORDER This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 116/1992 convicting the accused/appellant No.1 u/S. 307 and accused /appellant No.2 u/S. 307/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1-11-1991 at 7.30 p.m. accused /appellants assaulted one Rajendra alias Raju Dubey (PW-10) causing as many as six incised wounds with knife. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-12 was recorded on 1-11-1991 itself in the hospital and later on the same day FIR Ex. P-8 was registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Victim was medically examined on that day itself by Dr. Nihar Bajpai (PW-9) who noticed as many six incised wounds on his body vide Ex. P-9. Victim remained hospitalised from 1-11-1991 to 17-11-1991 and during this period surgery was also performed on him. Case diary statement of the victim Ex. D-1 was recorded on 2-11-1991. After completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police on 17-12-1991 for the offence under Section 307, 34 IPC and thereafter the Court below also framed the charge under the same section. 3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, two witnesses namely Kushal Manji Chouhan (DW-1) and Nofil (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused /appellants submits that FIR itself has not been proved by the prosecution as its lodger himself has denied the same. He further submits that identity of the accused/appellants is also disputed because according to the father of the victim namely Satyanarayan (PW-4) names of the accused persons were told to him by the police people. He further submits that Rita Masih alias Ashalata (PW-1), Ramakant (PW-2) and Umashankar Agrawal (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He further submits that Rita Masih alias Ashalata (PW-1), Ramakant (PW-2) and Umashankar Agrawal (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He submits that statement of victim (PW-10) is not reliable because in the Court statement while improving his version, he has implicated the entire family of the accused persons and named even those persons who were not present at the place of incident. Counsel for the appellants further submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC is not made out and at the most their act would fall under Section 324 IPC. Lastly, he submits that the incident had taken place about 21 years back and that the appellants have remained in jail for 44 and 15 days respectively and therefore, if their conviction under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC is going to be maintained, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that minor discrepancies in the statement of the victim have to be ignored because admitting his signature on Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-12 he has categorically stated as to in what manner he was assaulted by the accused/appellants. He further submits that in Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-12 and case diary statement of the victim Ex. D-1 he has assigned the specific role to the accused/appellants and even if he has exaggerated his version, ignoring the same accused/appellants are liable to be convicted. He further submits that exaggerated part has already been disbelieved by the Court below while convicting the accused/appellants. He submits that as many as six injuries were caused to the victim on vital part and thus it can very well be said that intention of the accused /appellants was to kill the victim and in these circumstances their conviction under Section 304 IPC is fully justified. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Victim namely Rajendra Kumar Dubey (PW-10) has stated in his evidence that accused /appellants were his neighbour and that about two years prior thereto at about 7-7:30 p. m. when he was going on his bicycle to Shyam Nagar, near ITI school accused/appellants and one Nitesh called him and as soon as he stopped his bicycle, accused /appellant No. 1 herein showing him a knife asked him as to what it was and when he told that it was knife, he started abusing him and inflicted a blow with it on his right eye, left side of the chest, thigh, leg and hip as a result of which he became unconscious and fell down. While being assaulted, he was held by accused/appellant Balloo, one Adesh and Bipin because of which he could not leave the spot. According to him, he regained consciousness in the hospital after about 5-6 days but he did not lodge the report. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital after he regained consciousness and vide Ex. P-7 his full pant, vest and underwear were seized by the police and he was medically examined. In cross examination, he has denied that any case was registered against him and that the incident had taken place near the house of the accused persons. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the police in D. K. Hospital after 5-6 days and at the time he was consciouse, he disclosed the names of Vipin and Adesh to the police and it is not recorded in the same he could not tell the reason for that. According to this witness, he had no previous enmity with accused/appellant No. 1 herein. From paragraphs No.4 and 5 it appears that there are some omissions and contradictions in his Court statement if compared to case diary statement and Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-12 but they being minor in nature are insignificant. He has stated that the incident was witnessed by 15-20 persons but he did not know their names. From paragraphs No.4 and 5 it appears that there are some omissions and contradictions in his Court statement if compared to case diary statement and Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-12 but they being minor in nature are insignificant. He has stated that the incident was witnessed by 15-20 persons but he did not know their names. He has denied that Inspector Yadav had disclosed the names of the accused persons to his father and that on the basis of said disclosure he came to know the names of the accused persons who assaulted him and that he has named the accused persons on the basis of information given to him by his father and Inspector Yadav. He has denied that at the place of incident it was dark and visibility was not there. In paragraphs No. 7 and 8 various suggestions were given to this witness but he has denied the same. He has admitted that about 4-5 days after the incident he was informed by the police that out of the assailants, Shalloo and Balloo were already arrested and that if this fact was not disclosed to him by the police, he could not have come to know about the same. Dr. Nihar Bajpai (PW-9) is the witness who medically examined the victim vide Ex. P-9 and found following injuries on his body: (i) Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep medial portion of right eye and bridge of nose + forehead (ii) Incised wound measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep-left side of front of chest, 4, 5, 6th rib (iii) Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x se. tissue deep medial upper part of the left thigh (iv) Incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x se. deep-right gluteal region. (v) Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 1cm se. deep-suprapubic region of abdomen (vi) Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 2 cm x se. deep-middle of right leg. This witness has categorically stated that all the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by sharp edged weapon and if all the injuries are taken together, they were dangerous to life of the victim as excessive bleeding was there. He has stated that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon shown to him. deep-middle of right leg. This witness has categorically stated that all the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by sharp edged weapon and if all the injuries are taken together, they were dangerous to life of the victim as excessive bleeding was there. He has stated that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon shown to him. He has denied that injuries sustained by the victim could have come on account of fall from bicycle. Various suggestions were given to this witness but he remained firm as regards injuries. Dr. K. Thakur (PW-7) is the witness who had initially medically examined the victim who has proved the injuries described by Dr. Nihar Bajpai (PW-9) vide report Ex. P-9. Dr. P. L. Yadu (PW-13) is the witness who operated upon the victim Ex. P-15-A. He has stated that injury No.1 was serious in nature and sufficient to cause death. Ku. Rita Masih alias Asha Lata (PW-1), Ramakant (PW-2) and Umashankar Agrawal (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Satyanarayan (PW-4) father of the victim has stated that when he returned from his workplace, he came to know that his son has been assaulted by the accused/appellants. He is also the witness to seizure of certain articles made under Ex. P-5. Biambar (PW-5) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Ram Ganesh Pandey (PW-6) is the witness to seizure of certain articles vide Ex. P-5 and P-6 who has not stated anything specific. R. M. Tiwari (PW-8) - Assistant Sub Inspector, is the witness who recorded FIR Ex. P-8. Inder Pal (PW-11) is the witness to seizure made under Ex. P-2 as also the memorandum Ex. P-7 who has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. N. S. Yadav (PW-12) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Bimal Kumar Datt (PW-14) and Aniruddh (PW-15) are the witnesses who assisted in the investigation. Kushal Manji Chouhan (DW-1) and Nofil (DW-2) have stated that at the time of incident accused/appellants were working in the shop and were at the workplace. 9. Minute examination of the evidence on record makes it clear that on 1-11-1991 the accused/appellants assaulted the victim and caused six injuries to him. Kushal Manji Chouhan (DW-1) and Nofil (DW-2) have stated that at the time of incident accused/appellants were working in the shop and were at the workplace. 9. Minute examination of the evidence on record makes it clear that on 1-11-1991 the accused/appellants assaulted the victim and caused six injuries to him. Statement of the victim has been duly supported by the medical reports given by Dr. K. Thakur (PW-7), Dr. Nihar Bajpai (PW-9) and Dr. P. L. Yadu (PW-13). Minor contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim being insignificant are to be ignored. Likewise exaggerated part whereby the victim has tried to implicate the other family members of accused/appellants is also to be ignored because those persons were not named by him either in Dehati Nalisi or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Merely on the basis of certain exaggeration by the victim in his Court statement entire statement on record cannot be discarded especially when the allegation of assault is duly supported by the medical evidence. Court below has not committed any legal error in recording a finding that it is the accused/appellants who have caused injury to the victim. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC is in consonance with the evidence available on record and therefore same is affirmed. 10. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident had taken place about 21 years back and by now the accused/appellants must have become middle aged persons, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to imprisonment for two years from that of three years. Order accordingly. However, the accused/appellants shall have to deposit Rs. 5,000/- each (total 10,000) as compensation payable to the victim under Section 357 of Cr. P. C. Benefit of this order will be available to the accused/appellants only after they deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the Court below. 11. Appeal thus partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.