JUDGMENT : B.D. RATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.1.1998 passed by the learned IVth Additional Session Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 91/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and two years with fine stipulation respectively, appellant has preferred this appeal. According to the prosecution case, on 27.9.1995, between 6 to 7 pm at village Shivpura Nibuha when victim Sunita (PW2) after throwing cow dung, went to attend the call of nature, at that time, someone had inflicted injuries by Knife on her stomach. Blood was oozing and she was rendered unconscious. Coming to know about the incident, her brother Jagjeevan Ram Mishra (PW3) reached to the spot and brought her to Police Station, where FIR (Ex. P/2) was lodged by him. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 2. Statement of victim Sunita u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 8/10/95, when she became able to speak after treatment. 3. During the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges and contended that he had been falsely implicated. 4. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the facts mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P/2) and evidence of witnesses, it cannot be held that appellant was the assailant. He further submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted in its totality, it cannot be said that appellant had inflicted injury with intention to cause death of victim, and as such the offence cannot fall u/s 307 of the IPC, but, at the most, u/s 324 of the IPC. 5. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and no interference was called for. 6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the trial Court was perused. 7. Though FIR was lodged against unknown persons but by looking to the entire evidence of the witnesses, it is revealed that just after the incident, Sunita was rendered unconscious. Her brother Jagjeevan Ram Mishra, after reaching to the spot, had brought her to the Police Station and FIR was lodged by him against unknown persons. The name of assailant was disclosed by Sunita only when she regained consciousness. Her brother Jagjeevan Ram Mishra, after reaching to the spot, had brought her to the Police Station and FIR was lodged by him against unknown persons. The name of assailant was disclosed by Sunita only when she regained consciousness. On the basis of some discrepancies that occurred in the evidence of witnesses in regard to the fact that name of the accused was disclosed by the victim on spot, the whole case of prosecution cannot be disbelieved. Discrepancies generally arise because witnesses are under pressure during lengthy cross-examinations and they fear that the real miscreant may not escape and that is the reason why they, at times, resort to exaggeration. It is the bounden duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff and the principle of Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. 8. In view of the evidence of Sunita (PW2), Ramgopal (PW1) and Umashankar (PW4), it was rightly held by the trial Court that injury was caused by appellant. 9. Dr. Rajendra Shrivastava (PW7), who had examined the victim and prepared the MLC report (Ex. P/14), has found that only one stab wound was caused over the epigastria region (abdomen), having a size of 8 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep. At the time of examination, she was under drowsiness. It was also deposed by him that details and nature of injury could be obtained from the Ward. Though the doctor has deposed that injury was present over vital part and in absence of treatment, death could be caused, yet, in the absence of corresponding Ward report and in view of the X-ray report indicating no bony injury, in the opinion of this Court, the injury was simple and not sufficient to endanger the life of the victim. 10. Though, opinion evidence of a doctor is entitled to some weight and value, yet for adjudging the criminality of the offender, it is the duty of the Court to see whether ingredients for the offence (in this case under S. 307 IPC) were fully established or not. 10. Though, opinion evidence of a doctor is entitled to some weight and value, yet for adjudging the criminality of the offender, it is the duty of the Court to see whether ingredients for the offence (in this case under S. 307 IPC) were fully established or not. In this case, looking to the nature of injury, which was simple and in absence of corresponding opinion of the Ward Doctor, in the considered view of this Court, no offence was made out u/s 307 of the IPC, but it is a case, where conviction could safely be recorded u/s 324 of the IPC. Moreover, there is not even an iota of evidence on record to infer that any attempt was made to outrage the modesty of the victim. Therefore, the conviction u/s 354 of the IPC, cannot be sustained. 11. However, considering the fact that the incident took place on 27/9/95 wherein only one simple injury was caused to the victim, the physical, mental and financial hardship suffered by the appellant in the prosecuting the legal battle for the past 18 years, interests of justice would be met if only fine sentence is awarded to him u/s 324 of the IPC. 12. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. Convictions and consequent sentences under Sections 307 and 354 of the IPC are set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted u/s 324 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand), in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Out of the fine amount so deposited, Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) shall be paid to victim Sunita. Needless to say, that any fine amount, if deposited earlier, shall be accordingly adjusted. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. Partly Allowed.