JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgmenet of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.60/1991 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It is to be noted that co-accused-Shri Hakim Singh has been acquitted from the offences under Sections 307/34 and Section 323 IPC. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on the basis of "Parcha-Bayan" of injured-PW2-Shri Chandan Singh, FIR No.189/1991 came to be registered at Police Station Sewar (District Bharatpur) on 26.04.1991 in which it was alleged that on 23.04.1991 at about 9.30-10.00 a.m. when the complainant-injured was in his field and was sitting under the tree of 'Babool' at that time accused-appellant-Shri Rajan was cutting the tree of the complainant which was objected by the complainant on which the appellant went to his house and after some time he came back alongwith his father-Shri Hakim Singh-the acquitted accused and the appellant inflicted an injury on the head of the complainant by an axe. It was further averred that acquitted accused-Shri Hakim Singh also inflicted injuries to the wife of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the "Parcha-Bayan" of the complainant was recorded on the date of incident i.e. on 23.04.1991 at about 2.10 p.m. when he was under treatment in Male Surgical Ward Bad No.26, General Hospital, Bharatpur, however, the formal FIR No.189/1991 for the offence under Section 324 IPC was registered on 26.04.1991 when injury and x-ray report were obtained. During investigation evidence was collected and charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. Accused-appellant Shri Rajan was charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC whereas acquitted-accused-Shri Hakim Singh was charged for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and for offence under Section 323 IPC. To support the charges, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the accused denied the allegation and the evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated by the reasons as stated by them. In defence, statement of DW1-Shri Avtar Singh was recorded. To support the charges, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the accused denied the allegation and the evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated by the reasons as stated by them. In defence, statement of DW1-Shri Avtar Singh was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and evaluating and appreciating the evidence available on record passed the impugned judgment and order. 3. Assailing the appellate judgment and order, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:- (1)Admittedly, the incident is of 23.4.1991 whereas formal FIR has been registered on 26.4.1991 and no explanation has been given on the part of the prosecution regarding the delay made for registration of the FIR and the same makes the whole prosecution story doubtful and it is liable to be discarded entirely. (2) Only interested eye witnesses have been produced to support the statement of the injured-complainant, who are not reliable more particularly in view of the fact that they have not been named as witnesses of the incident in the "Parcha-Bayan." (3) Even the statement of the injured-complainant PW2-Shri Chandan Singh is not reliable as he has made several improvements from the first version of the incident and there are several material contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies, in his statement recorded during trial in comparison to the version of the incident as narrated in the "Parcha-Bayan" as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the evidence available on record it is clear that prior to the alleged incident there was dispute between the parties regarding a piece of land and, therefore, possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled-out. (4) On the basis of self same evidence co-accused-Shri Hakim Singh has been acquitted by the trial Court itself assigning reasons in support thereof and, therefore, it would not be safe to held the appellant guilty on the basis of the same evidence. (5) Several material investigative errors and lapses have been committed by the investigating officer more particularly he did not make inspection of the site and, therefore, benefit of doubt is to be granted to the appellant for the lapses on the part of the investigating agency. No steps were also taken by the investigating officer to collect blood stained soil from the place of incident. No steps were also taken by the investigating officer to collect blood stained soil from the place of incident. (6) Although, the injury report Ex.P6 appears to have been prepared on the date of incident itself i.e. 23.04.1991 and duration of the injury has also been opined to be within a period of six hours and x-ray report was prepared on 24.04.1991 but PW8-Dr.Umesh Mangal in his cross examination has admitted that the fracture found could be of a period within a month. He has further admitted that the injury found on the head of the injured could be caused if his head comes in contact with a hard surface. In the light of admissions made by this material witness, possibility cannot be ruled out that the injured-complainant received head injury some other time and place, but due to previous enmity it has been attributed to the appellant. (7) PW6-Dr.Bhopal Singh has given contradictory statement regarding the fact whether the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, therefore, the statement of this witness is of no evidentiary value and it has to be discarded entirely. (8) The incident is of the year 1991 and the appellant at that time was of the age of 18 years and the appeal is pending since 1992 and the appellant has already undergone some part of the sentence and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced and modified to a reasonable extent and more particularly to the period already undergone by him. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case of Naiab Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1986 Cr.L.R. (SC) 468. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor controverting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record has come to a definite conclusion regarding part played by the appellant in the incident and there is no reason to interfere in the same. It was also submitted that sentence of life imprisonment is prescribed for the offence under Section 326 IPC and, therefore, the sentence passed cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 6. It was also submitted that sentence of life imprisonment is prescribed for the offence under Section 326 IPC and, therefore, the sentence passed cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the record made available for my perusal as well as the reasons recorded by the trial Court in support of the impugned judgment and order and the case law relied upon on behalf of the appellant. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find merit in any of the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant. Although, the formal FIR was registered on 26.04.1991 but it is clear that the "Parcha-Bayan" of the injured-complainant PW2-Shri Chandan Singh was recorded on the date of incident itself i.e.23.04.1991 at 2.10 p.m. when he was undergoing treatment for his injury in Male Surgical Ward of General Hospital, Bharatpur and therefore, it cannot be said that delay of any kind was made for lodging the report about the incident. It appears that the "Parcha-Bayan" alongwith the injury report and x-ray report was sent through Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur to the concerned Police Station at Sewar and it was received on 26.04.1991 and formal FIR was then registered. It is pertinent to note that the place of incident lies within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sewar whereas "Parcha-Bayan" Ex.P2 was recorded in a hospital at Bharatpur. Although, some of the eye witnesses examined during trial were not named in the "Parcha-Bayan" as eye witnesses of the incident, but only by that reason their statements cannot be discarded, if otherwise they are found to be reliable. It now the well settled legal position is that name of each and every witness is not required to be mentioned in the Parcha-Bayan/FIR. Otherwise also, if for the sake of arguments their statements are not considered even then the sole statement of injured-complainant-PW2-Shri Chandan Singh is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence for which he has been found guilty by the learned trial Court. In his examination-in-chief he has in detail as narrated in what manner the incident initiated and how the appellant came back from his house alongwith an axe and inflicted injury on his head by it. In his examination-in-chief he has in detail as narrated in what manner the incident initiated and how the appellant came back from his house alongwith an axe and inflicted injury on his head by it. Although, he has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come out making his statement doubtful so far as the part played by the present appellant is concerned. Similarly, I do not find that he has made any material improvements from the first version of the incident in his statement recorded during trial. Similarly, there are no material contradictions inconsistencies and discrepancies so far as the basic story of the incident is concerned. Although, his part of the statement to the extent of acquitted accused has not been believed by the trial Court and he has been given benefit of doubt as the trial Court found that no overt act has been attributed to the acquitted accused in the incident, but only by that reason the entire evidence available on record and more particularly to the extent of the appellant cannot be ignored and discarded. It is well settled legal position that conviction can be held even on some part of the statement of a witness, if it is otherwise believed by the Court. So far as the false implication of the appellant due to some prior dispute and enmity is concerned, although the same was one of the ground of defence from the very beginning, but I find no reliable evidence on record supporting the same. The prosecution story cannot be doubted on the basis of some unfounded defence raised on behalf of the accused. Similarly, the basic prosecution story cannot be doubted and discarded by the reason that some immaterial investigative lapses were committed by the investigating officer during investigation. No undue benefit can be given to the appellant on this ground also. From the overall evidence available on record, it can not be held that the injury found on the head of the complainant infact was not received as alleged by the prosecution, but it was received at some other time in some other incident, but it has been wrongly and false attributed to the appellant in the present incident. "Parcha-Bayan" shows that when it was recorded on 23.04.1991, the injured-complainant was undergoing treatment for his injury in Male Surgical Ward Bad No.26, General Hospital, Bharatpur. "Parcha-Bayan" shows that when it was recorded on 23.04.1991, the injured-complainant was undergoing treatment for his injury in Male Surgical Ward Bad No.26, General Hospital, Bharatpur. It is nobody's case that the complainant was under treatment for an injury which was received by him some time prior to 23.04.1991. Even no suggestion was made to him in cross examination to that effect. According to injury report dated 23.04.1991 (Ex.P6) when the injured was medically examined by PW6-Dr.Bhopal Singh Choudhary incised wound by a sharp weapon was found on frontal parietal region on his head. The duration of injury has been opined within six hour. This supports the fact that the complainant was admitted for treatment of his injury which was received by him on the date of incident i.e. 23.04.1991 and not for the injury received prior to it in some other incident. According to x-ray report dated 24.04.1991 (Ex.P7) evidence of fracture of left parietal bone was found by PW8 Dr.Umesh Mangal. This also supports the fact that the complainant was under treatment for the injury received on 23.04.1991. Although, PW8-Dr.Umesh Mangal in his cross examination has opined that the fracture found on the head of the complainant could be of a period within a month, but if considered in the light of other evidence including the medical evidence already referred, merely by his this admission it cannot be held that the injury was infact received by the complainant at any other time in some other incident, but it has been falsely and wrongly attributed to the appellant. This opinion of the witness Dr. Umesh Mangal is also of no evidentiary value that the injury found could be caused, if the head comes in contact with some hard surface as it is even not the case of the appellant that the head of the complainant somehow came in contact with such a surface causing injury to him. In absence of such evidence mere opinion given by an expert in cross examination is of no value. From the perusal of the appellate judgment, I find that so far as the present appellant is concerned, the learned trial Court has duly appreciated and evaluated the evidence available on record and has rightly found that the appellant caused injury on the head of the injured-complainant by an axe. From the perusal of the appellate judgment, I find that so far as the present appellant is concerned, the learned trial Court has duly appreciated and evaluated the evidence available on record and has rightly found that the appellant caused injury on the head of the injured-complainant by an axe. In the present case, the statement of the injured gets sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence also. 8. Now, the question remains to be answered is whether the sentence passed by the trial Court is unreasonable and excessive in the facts and circumstances and whether it requires to be modified or reduced to some other extenter more particularly in view of the fact that the extent is of the year 1991 and the appeal is pending since 1992. 9. On consideration of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Nahara Ram & Anr. reported in JT 2004 (6) SC 251 , I do not find any reason to reduce or modify the sentence as it cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Although, only one injury by axe has been attributed to the appellant but the same is on the vital part of the body i.e.head. Although, at the time of the incident the age of the appellant is said to be only 18 years but this fact cannot be ignored that injured-complainant PW2-Shri Chandan Singh was also of the age of 85 years at the relevant time. No undue advantage can be given to the appellant even for the sentence is concerned, merely because the incident is of the year 1991. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant for reduction of sentence is also not legally tenable. 10. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.03.1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.60/1991 is upheld and affirmed and the appeal is, hereby, dismissed. The appellant Rajan is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 10.03.2014 so that he can undergo the sentence passed by the trial Court. If he fails to comply this order, necessary steps including arrest warrant would be taken by the trial Court for the presence of the appellant so that he can undergo the sentence passed against him.Appeal dismissed. *******