JUDGMENT : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.: - The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2007 passed by the 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Sewree in Sessions Case No. 183 of 2006. By the said judgment and 9rder, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- IDRY for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant was residing on 2nd Floor in Natalwala Building, 'B' Wing. Mahim (W), Mumbai. PW 2 Mehrunisa was residing in the same building on the ground floor. PW 1 Shamim was residing in front of the building of the appellant. PW 4 Ayub was a neighbour of the appellant. (b) The incident occurred on 05.11.2005 at about 12.00 noon. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Shivaji with a chopper. Shivaji sustained injuries. He was taken to the hospital. PW 7 Dr. Shingnapurkar examined Shivaji. She found following injuries on the person of Shivaji :- 1. Contused lacerated wound - crush injury left occipital. 7 x 6 x 1 cm. fresh injury, bone deep; 2. Contused lacerated wound - left neck carotid present. 8 x 9 x 4 cm. muscle deep; 3. Clear cut to the wrist only tag of skin attached; 4. Contused lacerated wound on right forearm with compound fracture ulna. FIR of Shivaji came to be recorded. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant came to be arrested on 05.11.2005 in the evening. At the time of arrest, his clothes were found blood stained. He was also found in possession of blood stained chopper which was tucked inside his pant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charges came to be framed against the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted Shivaji with a chopper and caused him four injuries. 5. At the outset, it may be stated that though Shivaji was the injured person, he was not examined as he died on 21.03.2006 due to burn injuries which had nothing to do with the incident in question, however, the prosecution case has relied on the evidence of three eye witnesses who witnessed the incident i.e. the appellant assaulting Shivaji. These three eye witnesses are PW 1 Shamim, PW 2 Mehrunisa and PW 4 Ayub. They were all neighbours of the appellant. PW 1 Shamim has stated that on the day of the incident at 12.00 noon, she saw the appellant assaulting one person with a chopper. The evidence of PW 2 Mehrunisa and PW 4 Ayub is on the same lines as that of PW 1 Shamim. The evidence of all these three witnesses establishes that the appellant assaulted Shivaji with a chopper. 6. There is another incriminating circumstance which goes against the appellant that is on the day of the incident, the appellant came to be apprehended by the police. PW 9 API Bangar has stated that they caught the appellant at Nakhoda Garden, Mahim Junction. A chopper was found on his person which was tucked in his pant near the stomach. The chopper and the clothes of the appellant were sent to CA. As per CA report Exh 29, the chopper as well as the clothes of the appellant were found stained with blood of' AB' group. As per the CA report Exh. 34, the blood group of the appellant is 'O' group. The clothes of the deceased were stained with blood of' AB' group. As per CA report Exh 29, the chopper as well as the clothes of the appellant were found stained with blood of' AB' group. As per the CA report Exh. 34, the blood group of the appellant is 'O' group. The clothes of the deceased were stained with blood of' AB' group. Thus, finding of the blood stains of the group of injured person on the clothes of the appellant and on the chopper which was found in his possession is an highly incriminating circumstance which goes against the appellant. 7. Thus, the evidence on record shows that the appellant assaulted Shivaji and caused him four injuries which are reflected in paragraph 2 above. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, however, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and we find no reason in the judgment for imposing the maximum sentence of imprisonment. Looking to the evidence on record, especially the medical evidence, we are of the opinion that the appropriate sentence would be rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- IDRI for one month, hence, the following order : ORDER i. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 is maintained, however, the sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- IDRI for two months. ii. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal allowed.