JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2000, whereby said court has convicted accused/ appellant Darban Singh under section 307 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The trial court has further directed that if the fine is not paid by the convict he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.04.1996, at about 8:00 p.m., P.W.3 Kundan Singh was in his tea stall situated in village Harsila, when accused Darban Singh came there in a drunken state, and the two started quarreling. Thereafter, accused Darban Singh took out a knife and stabbed Kundan Singh. The neighbouring shopkeepers namely Bhajan Singh (P.W.4) and Lacham Singh (P.W.2) rushed to the spot. Injured Kundan Singh (P.W.3) was taken on the next day (13.04.1996) at about 7:15 a.m., to District Hospital Bageshwar, where he was admitted, and his injury was recorded in injury report (Ex. A2). First information report (Ex. A1) of the incident was given by P.W.1 Kedar Singh (cousin of the injured) with Naib Tehsildar of the area. (In Uttarakhand hills certain Revenue Officials are given police powers, in interior areas).On the basis of the report lodged by Kedar Singh crime no. 8 of 1996 was registered with Patti Patwari Tuped, relating to offence punishable under section 307 IPC, against accused Darban Singh. P.W.6 Himalaya Singh, Naib Tehsildar conducted the investigation. He interrogated the witnesses, inspected the spot, and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex. A6) against accused Darban Singh (son of Pratap Singh) for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Almora, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora, on 30.07.1998, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, against accused Darban Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora, on 30.07.1998, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, against accused Darban Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears that during the pendency of the sessions trial new Sessions Division of Bageshwar was created, and the case was transferred to the court of Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in whose territorial area the place of incident falls. Prosecution got examined P.W.1 Kedar Singh (informant), P.W.2 Lacham Singh (declared hostile), P.W.3 Kundan Singh (injured eye witness), P.W.4 Bhajan Singh (declared hostile), P.W.5 Dr. N.D. Punetha (who medically examined the injured) and P.W.6 Himalaya Singh, the then Naib Tehsildar (who investigated the crime). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, in reply to which he pleaded that the evidence adduced against him was false. At the end of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Darban Singh stated that Kundan Singh might have suffered injury in a drunken state elsewhere. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, and accordingly convicted accused Darban Singh. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 08.06.2001/19.06.2001, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, this appeal is preferred by the convict. 6. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found by P.W.5 Dr. N.D. Punetha on 13.04.1996 at 7:15 a.m., on the person of Kundan Singh (P.W.3). The same are being reproduced from injury report (Ex. A2):- “(i) Stab wound 4 cm X 1½ cm X cavity deep present on the left side of iliac fossa, 5cm above the iliac crest. Loop of intestine came out. For internal injury case was referred to surgeon for management. Margins were clear cut and well defined. (ii) Multiple abrasions ½ cm X ½ cm, 1 cm X ½ cm, 1 cm X ½ cm, ½ cm X ½ cm with loose scab present on the chest of the midline”. P.W.5 Dr. Loop of intestine came out. For internal injury case was referred to surgeon for management. Margins were clear cut and well defined. (ii) Multiple abrasions ½ cm X ½ cm, 1 cm X ½ cm, 1 cm X ½ cm, ½ cm X ½ cm with loose scab present on the chest of the midline”. P.W.5 Dr. N.D. Punetha has stated that nature of the injury no. 1 was dangerous to life. He further told the court that the injury could have been caused by sharp edged pointed weapon. He further told that it could have been caused on 12.04.1996, around 8:30 p.m. From the medical evidence on record given by the medical officer of the Government District Hospital it is established on the record that Kundan Singh (P.W.3) did suffer knife injury on the date and time of the incident. Now, this Court has to examine whether accused Darban Singh in an attempt to commit murder of Kundan Singh inflicted knife blow on his person or not. 7. P.W.3 Kundan Singh is the star eye witness of the case who had suffered injuries in the incident. This witness has stated that on 12.04.1996 at about 8:00 p.m., he was sitting in his shop (tea stall) in Harsila. The witness further stated that at that point of time accused Darban Singh came there in a drunken state, and started using foul language. P.W.3 Kundan Singh frankly admitted that he too had take some liquor and in reply to foul language used by the accused, he (P.W.3) also uttered filthy language. On this, accused Darban Singh took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him. P.W.3 Kundan Singh further narrated that Bhajan Lal @ Bhajan Singh (P.W.4) also came there. The witness has disclosed that at the time of incident there was a kerosene lamp lighting in the shop. P.W.3 Kundan Singh further told that after receiving injury, he got unconscious. He further told that on the next morning at about 6:00 a.m., P.W.2 Lacham Singh came in his shop and took him to District Hospital, Bageshwar. The witness further told that he asked Lacham Singh to inform his brother about the incident whereafter P.W.2 Kedar Singh cousin of the injured was informed who gave first information report to the revenue/police official concernd. 8. P.W.3 Kundan Singh (injured witness) told that he remained hospitalized for ten days for medical treatment. The witness further told that he asked Lacham Singh to inform his brother about the incident whereafter P.W.2 Kedar Singh cousin of the injured was informed who gave first information report to the revenue/police official concernd. 8. P.W.3 Kundan Singh (injured witness) told that he remained hospitalized for ten days for medical treatment. He further told that his clothes were blood stained. In cross~examination the witness told that he gave the blood stained clothes to the Naib Tehsildar (Investigating Officer). He denied to the suggestion that he suffered injury by falling on the ground. 9. On behalf of the appellant it is argued that neither P.W.2 Lacham Singh nor P.W.4 Bhajan Singh has corroborated the prosecution story as such the trial court has erred in law in holding the accused guilty of the charge. I have gone through the statement of P.W.2 Lacham Singh and that of P.W.4 Bhajan Singh. P.W.2 Lacham Singh though declared hostile but he has supported the prosecution case partially. He has stated that on 13.04.1996 at about 6:00 a.m, when he reached in the shop of Kundan Singh, he saw that Kundan Singh was still lying in a injured condition whereafter he informed his cousin Kedar Singh (P.W.1). As to the previous evening incident he did not say anything. However, in cross~examination he did tell that on the evening of 12 April he had gone home after closing his shop. He further told in the cross~examination that he cannot say by the time he left at about 8:00 p.m., whether Kundan Singh was still in the shop or not as he did not notice him at that time. As far as P.W.4 Bhajan Singh is concerned he has also supported the prosecution case partially. This witness has stated that on the day of incident at about 8/8:30 p.m., quarrel was going on between the accused Darban Singh and Kundan Singh (injured). He further told that both were in a drunken state. However, he states that he did not see Darban Singh inflicting knife blow on Kundan Singh. [Explaining it, he has stated that he was having his meals in his hotel (tea stall) at that point of time]. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the witnesses namely P.W.2 Lacham Singh and P.W.4 Bhajan Singh have not dislodged the prosecution case rather they have supported it partially. 10. [Explaining it, he has stated that he was having his meals in his hotel (tea stall) at that point of time]. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the witnesses namely P.W.2 Lacham Singh and P.W.4 Bhajan Singh have not dislodged the prosecution case rather they have supported it partially. 10. It is also argued on behalf of the accused/ appellant that Kundan Singh (P.W.3) might have suffered injury by falling in a drunken state over a pointed stone but this suggestion has been categorically denied not only by P.W.3 Kundan Singh but also by P.W.5 Dr. N.D. Punetha who has stated that injury no. 1 could not have been caused by a pointed stone though it was possible injury no. 2 might have been caused by such stone. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court finds that injury suffered by P.W.3 Kundan Singh was due to stabbing, and his intestine protruded for which the above medical officer referred the patient for surgery. This Court is in agreement with the trial court that there was no reason on the part of Kundan Singh to implicate the innocent accused with whom he had no enmity. As to the source of light at the time of the incident, it is sufficient to mention here that it has come on the record that a kerosene lamp was lighting in the tea stall of Kundan Singh (injured). Even otherwise accused and injured were known to each other, and when they were quarreling there was no difficulty in identifying the accused by the injured. 11. Having reappreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC, as against Darban Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the injury caused in the present case is on the vital part and dangerous to life as stated by P.W.5 Dr. N.D. Punetha, as such the trial court has rightly held accused Darban Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that at least the sentence awarded by the trial court be reduced. N.D. Punetha, as such the trial court has rightly held accused Darban Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 12. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that at least the sentence awarded by the trial court be reduced. Considering the nature of injury suffered by P.W.3 Kundan Singh at the hands of accused Darban Singh no sentence less than three years rigorous imprisonment can be said just and proper. In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced from four years to three years without disturbing the sentence of fine. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of, affirming the conviction of accused/appellant Darban Singh, son of Pratap Singh under section 307 IPC. However, sentence awarded by the trial court is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years without disturbing the direction to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of payment of which the convict has to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year). With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of. Accused/appellant Darban Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Lower court record be sent back.