JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2010 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2009. He was found guilty for the offence of sections 307 and 452 IPC wherefor he has appropriately been sentenced by the court below. 2. Having heard the learned amicus curiae as well as the State Counsel, it transpires that on the relevant date and time, the appellant went to the house of victim Salim Ahmed and demanded a Biri from him. When the victim expressed his inability for the same, accused stabbed him four times with the knife which he held in his hand, making the victim seriously injured. Hearing the hue and cry, PW1 Ms. Salma (daughter of victim) and PW3 Smt. Anisa Begum (daughter-in-law) came at the spot. They both witnessed the occurrence and saw that the appellant was still standing having knife in his hand. Victim then became unconscious. His brother Noor Ahmed also arrived at the spot, who lodged the report. Soon thereafter, accused escaped from the spot and came to his house along with the same knife in his hand. The said knife was snatched by his own daughter Ms. Sahina. This weapon was recovered by Naib Tehsildar (Revenue Law Enforcing Official) of the concerned area on the same day at 7 PM. The victim was shifted to the government hospital, Rudraprayag where the following injuries were noted by PW4 Dr. Govind Vallabh: - A. Incised wound of size 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep present over lateral aspect of left side chest on posterior axillary line, 12.00 cm in front of lower border of left scapula. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. B. Incised wound of size 4.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present of left side chest wall on Axillary line, 10.00 cm in front of injury no.1. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. C. Incised wound of size 6.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep present over left side chest wall. 12.00 cm below and laterally to left nipple. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. D. Incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep present over left side chest wall, 4.00 cm above and laterally to left nipple. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. 12.00 cm below and laterally to left nipple. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. D. Incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep present over left side chest wall, 4.00 cm above and laterally to left nipple. Fresh blood is coming out of wound. E. Abrasion of size 10 cm x 0.5 cm present over left side chest wall in AP direction, started from injury no.3. 3. Learned amicus curiae has argued that no blood was found on the knife nor the same was sent for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court, considering the arguments of learned amicus curiae, do not find any substance therein because the recovery of knife was made almost after seven hours of incident from the possession of real daughter of accused. So, within this duration of seven hours, it was but natural for the daughter of accused to remove the blood signs, in case she had noticed the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the victim Salim Ahmed remained confined in the hospital up to 4.7.2009 i.e. for almost eight days. 4. Besides, PW1 Km. Salma (eyewitness), PW2 Saleem Miyan (injured) and PW3 Smt. Anisa Begum (daughter-in-law of victim) have uniformly narrated the incident in their deposition before the Court. There is no material inconsistency or incongruity or discrepancy in their statements which may belie the prosecution story. 5. It has further been argued by learned amicus curiae that in fact, it was a fight between the victim and his own real brother Noor Mohammed. In absence of any suggestion in the cross-examination to either of the prosecution witnesses, such a contention cannot be accepted. It is simply an assumption at the stage of arguments before this Court, which do not have any basis to make its credence. 6. At last, it was argued that the appellant is in jail eversince the date of his arrest 27.06.2009, meaning thereby, that the accused has already passed quarter to five years in prison. It was also argued that it was not a pre-planned or conceived crime on the part of appellant but it was on the sudden passion which arose in his mind on account of refusal of ‘Biri’ by the victim. So, the amicus curiae prays for reduction of sentence in light of the fact that the accused is a poor person. It was also argued that it was not a pre-planned or conceived crime on the part of appellant but it was on the sudden passion which arose in his mind on account of refusal of ‘Biri’ by the victim. So, the amicus curiae prays for reduction of sentence in light of the fact that the accused is a poor person. In the circumstances, as have been highlighted before the Court, the Court deems it proper to reduce the sentence of appellant to five years’ R.I. instead of seven years’ R.I. as awarded by the court below u/s 307 IPC. 7. For the reasons, as afore-stated, the appeal is dismissed on merits but with the modification of sentence that for the offence u/s 307 IPC, the appellant shall undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment. However, the punishment awarded u/s 452 IPC, as well as the fine imposed by the trial court against the appellant under both sections, will remain intact. Appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence, as modified by this Court. The period already undergone by him shall be adjusted accordingly. 8. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the court concerned.