JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 17.09.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 217/92, convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000/. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 05.06.91 at about 9:35 p.m. injured Ajay Tiwari (PW4) was coming to his house was stopped by the appellant on the way and was assaulted many blows by knife. Injured was taken to hospital by his maternal grandfather and maternal uncle. Injured lodged a report in hospital itself. Injured was referred to medical college for further treatment. Appellant was arrested and knife was recovered from his possession. Completing investigation, police Kotwali Jabalpur submitted a chargesheet under Section 307 of IPC against appellant. Trial court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant in the trial court was that of false implication. 3. To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Dr. B.S. Chouhan (PW1), Rakesh Kumar Shukla (PW2), Sunil (PW3), Ajay Tiwari (PW4), Shyamsundar, Head Constable (PW5) and B.D. Jaiswara, Sub Inspector (PW6) were recorded. After appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced the appellant as above. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. There is no independent corroboration to the evidence of injured. Evidence of injured is suffering from material contradictions and omissions. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 5. In view of the evidence of Dr. B.S. Chouhan and Ex.P1 MLC report, it remains no longer disputed that injured sustained nine incised wounds on hands, legs, thighs, etc. Injuries were simple in nature. 6. Ajay Tiwari (PW4) stated that appellant was standing along with 23 friends, asked address of someone. Injured refused to accompany them because of his examination. Appellant assaulted knife blows. He sustained injuries. PW4 was caught hold by two persons and was stabbed by the appellant. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P7 was lodged by him in the hospital soon after the incident. Ex.P8 FIR was drawn up on the basis of that Dehati Nalisi at police Kotwali Jabalpur. 7. Appellant assaulted knife blows. He sustained injuries. PW4 was caught hold by two persons and was stabbed by the appellant. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P7 was lodged by him in the hospital soon after the incident. Ex.P8 FIR was drawn up on the basis of that Dehati Nalisi at police Kotwali Jabalpur. 7. It is true that some contradictions/omissions have been appeared statement of injured, like there was no mention of injury on his hand in Dehati Nalisi. There had been no enmity or any reason for appellant to cause injuries to him. Injured has suppressed the fact about his inability to accompany the appellant because of his examination in Dehati Nalisi. While there is a clear mention of the role of the appellant in Dehati Nalisi of causing injuries by knife then remaining contradictions and omissions cannot be said to be very material. In respect of involvement of some other persons version of the injured is inconsistent and details of all injuries did not appear in his evidence, but these are not the grounds on which testimony of injured can be disbelieved in toto. In my opinion, trial court has rightly appreciated his evidence and has correctly arrived at finding of conviction under Section 324 of IPC. 8. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of incident accused was aged of 19 years only. This incident happened in the year 1991. After more than 20 years of incident no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back in jail. There is a period of 31 days of the custody to the credit of appellant pending investigation and trial. It is submitted by learned panel lawyer that appellant has caused as many as nine knife injuries on the person of injured though were simple, deserves appropriate sentence. 9. In view of the fact that appellant was aged of 19 years only at the time of incident maximum jail sentence of 3 years seems to be harsh and excessive. Instead in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 months R.I. would be sufficient and will meet the ends of justice however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.3000/to Rs.5000/. 10. As discussed above appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 324 of IPC is maintained. Instead in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 months R.I. would be sufficient and will meet the ends of justice however fine amount is enhanced from Rs.3000/to Rs.5000/. 10. As discussed above appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 324 of IPC is maintained. Jail sentence is reduced from 3 years R.I. to 3 months R.I., fine sentence is enhanced from Rs.3000/to Rs.5000/. Needless to right that appellant shall be entitled to benefit of the custody period spent by him during investigation and trial. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.