JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J .- 1. Statement (fardbeyan) of Sushil Kumar Verma, PW 3 has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in short, is that on 24.10.1994 at about 5.15 a.m. informant was returning his home after meeting the call of nature, accused-appellants, Panna Lal Chaudhary and Jagdish Chaudhary armed with sword came and inflicted the same on him with intention to kill that is specified by mentioning that accused Panna Lal Chaudhary inflicted his sword on his head and back, while the accused-appellant Jagdish Chaudhary inflicted his sword on his left hand. Due to assault mentioned above informant received injuries on his head, back and left arm. He started to make hue and cry, hearing the same, Manorma Devi, his sister-in-law (bhabhi) came in his rescue. Further, allegation is that the accused-appellant Panna Lal Chawdhary blew sword on her chest. Pappu @ Bauna Chawdhary is shown one of the participants. For Kausaliya Devi, it is said that she was exhorting maro-maro. Girja Devi is involved in the case, as she had provided wine in the night before the date of occurrence. Hari Kishore Verma is shown planner involved in making criminal conspiracy for last two days. After hearing the alarm/cry, witnesses namely. Kamleshwar Ojha. Sanjay Prasad and Baijnath came and saw the occurrence. Reason behind the incident is said pressure to compromise a criminal case pending against accused-appellant for kidnapping of PW 2's daughter. 2. After concluding the trial. Accused appellants are only convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. 3. In all 8 witnesses are examined the case and they are PW 1 Kamaleshwar Ojha. PW 2 Manorama Devi, PW 3 Sushil Kumar Verma, informant of the case, PW 4 Raj Kumar Singh, PW 5 Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh, PW 6 Rajdeo Manjhi, I.O. of the case, PW 7 Dr. Amarendra Kumar Sinha and PW 8 Dr. M.M. Rahim. 4. PW 4 is a formal witness who has got exhibited fardbeyan and signature of I.O. on it. PW 6. I.O. of the case has stated about investigation of the case and nothing is referred by any of the parties if some mistake was committed on his behalf in investigating the case prejudicing merit. 5. PW 1. M.M. Rahim. 4. PW 4 is a formal witness who has got exhibited fardbeyan and signature of I.O. on it. PW 6. I.O. of the case has stated about investigation of the case and nothing is referred by any of the parties if some mistake was committed on his behalf in investigating the case prejudicing merit. 5. PW 1. PW 2 and PW 3 are only material witnesses to state taking place of the incident in which also PW 1 is not stating about causing of any injury at the hand of accused-appellants in his presence, though he has supported the case of prosecution about receiving of injuries by PWs 2 and 3. 6. PW 5 is a Doctor of Referral Hospital where both the victims were initially taken for their examination and treatment and he has got exhibited Exts. 2 and 2/1, Three injuries are shown on person of PW 3 and two on PW 2 stated by them also. PW 7 and PW 8 are the witnesses who provided medical aid to PW 2 and PW 3. According to the learned counsel for the accused appellants, injuries found by PW 5, on person of PW 2 and PW 3 is shown increased in para-25 to 30 of the judgment as bed head tickets were mentioning such injuries. After going through both the bed head tickets, it is apparent that extension of injuries for stitching were there appearing bifurcating injuries, otherwise also the injuries found by PW 5 initially is found intact on person of the PW 2 and PW 3 by sharp cut weapon grievous also. 7. There is no need to mention that PW 2 and PW 3 are there to name the assailants, as accused-appellants who caused injuries in course of incident. They are doubted on the ground of no corroboration by independent witnesses and making no case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as there was no intervening circumstance. It is made clear that victim of the case are the witnesses of more importance. A care only is needed if they are in inimical term to the accused. Further, no number is prescribed for believing the prosecution case even a single witness is sufficient. In this case number of prosecution witness is two. Both the injured who are stating the whole prosecution story naming accused-appellants also. A care only is needed if they are in inimical term to the accused. Further, no number is prescribed for believing the prosecution case even a single witness is sufficient. In this case number of prosecution witness is two. Both the injured who are stating the whole prosecution story naming accused-appellants also. There is nothing to doubt the statement made by them. 8. Certainly, there is some unnecessary observation made by the trial Court that witnesses named in the F.I.R. were not produced as were gained over. It is made clear that Public Prosecutor is the best judge to produce any witness to save the interest of prosecution. 9. As on the point of intervening circumstance, it is the case of prosecution that PW 3 first received injuries arid his bhabhi PW 2 came in his rescue. For him, there is circumstance intervening giving no more opportunity for injuries. On the point of injury to PW 2 statement of PW 3 is that on his alarm, his bhabhi came, she was also assaulted by - accused-appellants by means of sword, blow of Jagdish hit her head and she fell down thereafter, this informant tried to raise her and he was again assaulted on his back. Moreover, injuries of Manorama Devi by sword is on the upper part of the body in front of chest to back of chest and that of PW 3 is on chest and scalp by means of sword. Fractured injury is also there leading to grievous though on arm but that has also been included in gathering intention to kill Motive/reason is clear that PW 2's daughter was kidnapped a case was pending for the same, accused appellants were accused in that case arid it is said that a pressure was made to compromise which was not accepted. 10. All the facts/materials are discussed by the trial Court certainly adding some unnecessary observations, in no case can be taken to doubt the well established prosecution case. 11. On the point of sentence, the points to be taken for lenient view are submitted being accused-appellants first offender and bread earner of their family has already been taken into consideration that may be added by the year taken in disposal of the case, offence committed in the year 1994 but is decided in the year 1999. Appeal is preferred and liberty to bail is given. Appeal is preferred and liberty to bail is given. On this count, two years benefit may be given exonerating the liability of fine. 12. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. Judgment of conviction dated 23.03.1999 is affirmed and Order of sentence dated 26.03.1999 is modified and minimized to 8 year rigorous imprisonment. Accused-appellants are on bail so, are directed to surrender before the Court below to serve their remaining sentence. 13. Bail bond and sureties furnished on behalf of the appellants are hereby cancelled and the Trial Court is also directed to take initiative for their (appellants) arrest. 14. Office is directed to send the records along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.