JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants, for the offences punishable under Sections 326 read with section 149 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2000/- or in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six months, and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed upon each of the appellants, by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag on the conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No. 137 of 1992, before him. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The appellants as well as the victim Subhash and Kamlakar were residents of village Bhingar. Since some land belonging to the villagers was to be purchased by third parties, two groups were formed in the village due to claims to payment and litigation was pending in Court. The appellants belong to one group and the victims belong to the other group. Since victim Subhash was taking lead role on behalf of his group, on the night of 3rd January, 1992, when Subhash was returning home on the motorcycle with victim Kamlakar on the pillion seat, at about 9.00 p.m. at village Shedung, appellants stopped the motorcycle by parking their Maruti van in front of the motorcycle. The appellants got down from the van and mercilessly assaulted the victims with sword. The victims managed to run to the house of P.W. 3 Pandurang Khetre and then went to Panvel Police Station. They were referred to Municipal Hospital at Panvel from where they were sent to Sion Hospital at Mumbai. The statement of victims were recorded by PSI Chavan, when the victims were in Municipal Hospital at Panvel. An offence was registered and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, clothes of the victims were seized. The Panchnama of spot was drawn up. The appellants were arrested on 16th January, 1992. The swords used in the assault were seized at the instance of accused No. 2 Krishna Gangaram Kathore. The clothes of the accused persons were also seized and the articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, who committed the case to the Court of Session, Raigad at Alibag. 3. The clothes of the accused persons were also seized and the articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, who committed the case to the Court of Session, Raigad at Alibag. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellants of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of false implication, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. P.W. 1 Subhash Patil stated about the dispute between the parties and also the manner in which assault was launched. He stated that on the incidental night when he and P.W. 2 Kamlakar were going on the motorcycle, a Maruti Van named as, "Krishna" came from the side of Bhingar village and was stopped in front of the motorcycle making the witness stop the motorcycle. The appellants armed with swords came out of the Maruti van and hit him and P.W. 2 on the various parts of body. He claimed to have been surrounded by appellants and due to blows of sword on the forehead and palm, he was injured. Inspite of the fact that six miscreants were assaulting Subhash and Kamlakar, both of them claimed that they managed to run towards the house of Pandurang Khetre in village Shedung, from where they proceeded to the police station at Panvel and then to the Municipal Hospital, Panvel. P.W. 1 Subhash proved his report at Exh.13. 6. P. W. 2 Kamlakar Bhoir corroborated the version of P.W. 1 Subhash on the manner in which the incident occurred, but stated that the miscreants were unknown persons and he could not identify them. Therefore, he was declared hostile to that extent. P.W. 1 Subhash proved his report at Exh.13. 6. P. W. 2 Kamlakar Bhoir corroborated the version of P.W. 1 Subhash on the manner in which the incident occurred, but stated that the miscreants were unknown persons and he could not identify them. Therefore, he was declared hostile to that extent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the witness refused to identify the appellants because cousin sister of P.W. 2 Kamlakar was married after the incident to Krishna Bhoir, who possibly belongs to the group of appellants. 7. P.W. 3 Pandurang is the person at whose house Subhash and Kamlakar had gone after the incident. He too stated that they came to his house, but refused to state about the disclosure of identity of the miscreants by P.W. Nos. 1 and 2. P.W. 4 Heeru Patil is witness at the spot panchnama which is at Exh.17. The spot panchnama shows that apart from articles, a broken piece of beer bottle were found on the spot. It was sought to be suggested to the first two witnesses that the incident occurred because P.W. 1 Subhash was drunk and could not control his motorcycle and fell down. The suggestion was denied. 8. The evidence of P.W. 5 Ananta Ghogare is totally unhelpful to both the prosecution as well as defence. P.W. 6 Jagannath is witness at the seizure of clothes of P.W. 1 and 2 vide Exh.21 and 22. As already stated P.W. 7 PSI Chavan recorded report. P.W. 8 Tukaram is hostile panch witness on the memorandum and seizure and in fact no recovery was made pursuant to the memorandum allegedly recorded in his presence at the instance of accused Sopan. P.W. 9 Dr. Ramrao Kendre examined victims and issued Medico Legal Certificates in respect of injuries sustained by the victims which he proved at Exh.28 and 29. The injuries observed by Dr. Kendre on the person of P.W. 2 Kamlakar were as under:- "1. Incised wound over right front parietal area 2” x ½” x ¼” bone deep with fracture skull on palpation. 2. Incised wound over right first inter digital space to inter metatarsal space ending on thumb 2" x ½" x ¼" 3. Incised wound over second metatarsal space on the part. 1" x ½" x ¼" The injuries observed by Dr. Incised wound over right front parietal area 2” x ½” x ¼” bone deep with fracture skull on palpation. 2. Incised wound over right first inter digital space to inter metatarsal space ending on thumb 2" x ½" x ¼" 3. Incised wound over second metatarsal space on the part. 1" x ½" x ¼" The injuries observed by Dr. Kendre on the person of P.W. 1 Subhash Patil were as under: "I. Incised wound over right frontal area 1½" x ¼ x bone deep with fracture right frontal area on palpation. 2. Incised wound over right second metacarpal phalangeal Phalaynial joint, vertical, 1" x ¼" x bone deep. Both the injuries are caused by sharp weapon, Red, fresh and were caused within four hours. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Dr. Kendre admitted that he had not taken any X-rays and therefore, his conclusion that there was fracture, was in fact baseless. He submitted that the prosecution had in fact tendered with Exh.11 at Serial Nos. 8 and 10, the injury certificates of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2, were issued by the Lokmanya Tilak Medical College Hospital at Sion. He submitted that the certificate in respect of Subhash Patil clearly shows that there was no fracture whereas certificate in respect of Kamlakar does not at all refer to anything like fracture. None of them was hospitalised for even a day for treatment. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if that was so, defence ought to have admitted those certificates. However, since certificates had been tendered by the prosecution for being admitted by the defence, though defence did not admit them at trial, defence cannot be prevented from relying on them now to falsify the observations of Dr. Kendre in respect of fractures. Since the medical certificate does not show any fracture, the observation of Dr. Kendre about fracture skull on palpation and fracture right frontal area, would obviously have to be rejected. These certificates of the Sion Hospital are at page Nos. 79 and 83 of the "D" file of the record and proceeding of Sessions Case. 11. P.W. 10 PSI Rafiuddin Patel conducted investigation. His evidence about seizure of swords based on the memorandum of statement of accused No.2 Krishna was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. These certificates of the Sion Hospital are at page Nos. 79 and 83 of the "D" file of the record and proceeding of Sessions Case. 11. P.W. 10 PSI Rafiuddin Patel conducted investigation. His evidence about seizure of swords based on the memorandum of statement of accused No.2 Krishna was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory does not show any conclusive findings about blood stains on the swords. The clothes of Subhash were stained with blood group "AB" which was his own blood group. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge should not have relied on the words of P.W.1 Subhash about the identity of Maruti van "Krishna" or the appellants since P.W. 2 Kamlakar, who was on the pillion seat, had refused to corroborate the version of P.W. 1 Subhash. The learned Sessions Judge rightly dealt with these aspects and found that it was subsequent event that made Kamlakar change sides and not support the version of P.W. 1 Subhash. The learned Judge had also rightly observed that there is no rule requiring the corroboration to victim's evidence and if his evidence inspires confidence of truthfulness, it should be accepted. Except for exaggeration about the assault on the whole the evidence of P.W. 1 Subhash does not suffer from any infirmity. It has also to be recalled that P.W. 2 Kamlakar corroborates the version of Sub hash in so far as story of assault is concerned, except that he does not identify the appellants as the authors of the injuries. It has also to be recalled that P.W. 3 Pandurang Bhoir too states that Subhash and Kamlakar came to his house in injured state. 13. In view of this as rightly submitted by the learned APP there is no question of holding that appellants were not the authors of injuries sustained by the victim. Even so learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the face of findings by Sion hospital to the effect that neither P.W. 1 Subhash nor P.W. 2 Kamlakar had suffered any fracture, there was no reason for the learned Judge to hold the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Even so learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the face of findings by Sion hospital to the effect that neither P.W. 1 Subhash nor P.W. 2 Kamlakar had suffered any fracture, there was no reason for the learned Judge to hold the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the appellants would at worst be held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident which took place on 3rd January, 1992 i.e. 20 years ago. The appellants were in jail pending investigation from 16th January, 1992 till 10th February, 1992 and on conviction from 17th August, 1996 to 12th September, 1996 i.e. in all for about 50 days. He submits that considering the nature of offence which has been proved and the period of 20 years which has been elapsed in between, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to prison again. 14. In view of this peculiar circumstance in my view since the appellants have been living under the shadow of conviction for all these years and since the gravity of offence which they have committed is substantially reduced, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to prison and reducing sentence to the period which they have undergone by increasing the fine proportionately should meet the ends of justice. 15. In view of this the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to that of offence punishable under Section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and their conviction for offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. The sentences of rigorous imprisonment for five years & one year, are reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for 50 days on both the counts which they seem to have already undergone, while increasing the fine for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian penal Code, to Rs.10,000/- to be paid by each of the appellant or in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is increased to Rs.1,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. If the fine amount is neither deposited nor recovered within four weeks from today, the learned Judge shall have the appellants arrested and committed to prison to serve sentence in default of payment of fine. If the amount of fine is recovered, it be paid to P.W. 1 Subhash towards compensation. Appeal partly allowed.