JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. 1. The Appellant in this jail criminal appeal has assailed the Judgment of conviction & sentence passed by the Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 151/47 of 2003. By the said Judgment the Appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 324/458 IPC & sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years & to pay of fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 458 of IPC in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months & rigorous imprisonment for two years & six months for offence under Section 324 IPC with the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The Appellant & two others faced the trial & all have also been convicted & sentenced as above stated. Prosecution case is that on 14.10.2002 around 1.25 P.M. accused Babujan & Ramjan came with sword & revolver with the Appellant coming holding bhujali & they knocked at the door of the house of the informant, P.W. 1. As the doors were not opened & instead the informant's wife asked the identity of the persons so knocking, there are ensued exchanges of words & finally it is said that the Appellant & two others broke open the door & forced their entry. It is said that accused Babujan gave blow by means of sword to P.W. 1, Md. Samim, shouting to finish him as he stood as a police informer. It is next stated that the Appellant assaulted him by means of bhujali which was caught hold of & then accused Ramjan showing the revolver at the wife of P.W. 1 threatened Samim to return the bhujali which was so returned. It is further stated that accused Babujan intending to murder P.W. 1 though attempted a blow at his neck, the same being warded of saved the life of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 sustained bleeding injury on his person for such assault by the accused persons including Appellant by means of above noted dangerous weapons. Such severe injuries being caused on the person of P.W. 1, P.W. 1's wife raised shout when the Appellant & others fled away. P.W. 1 sustained bleeding injury on his person for such assault by the accused persons including Appellant by means of above noted dangerous weapons. Such severe injuries being caused on the person of P.W. 1, P.W. 1's wife raised shout when the Appellant & others fled away. P.W. 1 on his way to hospital having presented the FIR to the police, necessary case was registered & on completion of investigation finally the accused persons including the Appellant faced the trial for offence under Sections 458/307/34 IPC & have been convicted & sentenced as stated above. 2. During trial prosecution examined 12 witnesses while proving the FIR Ext. 1/2, injury report Ext. 2, opinion of the Doctor as Ext. 3/2 & other documents such as the seizure list etc. The accused persons banked upon the plea of denial & false implication. 3. The Trial Court on analysis of evidence both oral & documentary in the touch stone of the settled principle of law with regard to the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case has rendered the finding of guilt against the Appellant & others for the offence under Sections 324/34 IPC & under Section 458 IPC & consequentially the sentence as stated above has been imposed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court is not proper & the evidence of the injured as well as his wife ought not have been accepted as those bristle with improbabilities, more so as there remains no corroboration on material particulars from any independent source. In view of above, it is his submission that the evidence ought to have been put to strict scrutiny which has not been done in this case. Thus he submits that the finding of the guilt rendered by the Court below is to be set at naught & so also the sentence. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate while refuting the above submission, supports the finding of the Trial Court as regards the complicity of the Appellant & others in causing injuries on the person of P.W. 1 by means of sharp cutting weapons. According to him, there surfaces no such justifiable reason to discard the evidence of P.W. 1 & his wife P.W. 2. According to him, there surfaces no such justifiable reason to discard the evidence of P.W. 1 & his wife P.W. 2. It is also his submission that such evidence receives full corroboration not only from the evidence of the Doctor & his report but also other evidence. So he contends that the appeal merits no acceptance. 6. Keeping the rival submission in mind & in the touch stone of settled position of law as stated above, let me proceed to examine the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court as regards the complicity of the Appellant. It is seen that P.W. 1, the injured has stated that when his wife P.W. 2 did not open the door, the Appellant & others made forcible entry & then his wife P.W. 2 shouted when he came near her. It is next stated by him that accused Babujan was found there to be holding the sword & accused Ramjan, a bhujali when accused Babujan, dealt blow on his right shoulder, he suffered bleeding injury. But when he attempted to give the next blow, it being warded off touched a portion of the forehead simultaneously hit against the wall of the house over which P.W. 1 got leaned. As regards the role of the present Appellant, it is stated that he gave bhujali blow on his left shoulder joint & next when he attempted to deal further blows, he caught hold of & snatched away the bhujali from him. The role of the other accused Ramjan is said as that he wanted the bhujali to be returned & threatened to cause gun-shot injury on the head of P.W. 2 when only the bhujali was returned. Except throwing suggestion which the witnesses have denied, the defence has not been able to elicit any such fact or circumstances during cross-examination to doubt the testimony of this witness. It has been stated by him that one Gauri & one Balloon Seller were present near at the relevant time but the defence has not been able to take any advantage of the same by bringing such material so as to say that non-examination of these two persons renders the evidence of P.W. 1 suspect & for that its fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact in the absence of anything surfacing in the evidence of P.W. 1 showing inherent improbability or infirmity & in the absence of any reason as to why the Appellant would be chosen to be falsely implicated, even without corroboration through any other oral evidence but with corroboration coming from the medical evidence, there remains no justification to discard said evidence. Thus P.W. 1's evidence is found to be acceptable in respect to the role of Appellant when the same also gets full corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2 who is none other than his wife besides the FIR narration as is seen from Ext. 1/2. So far as the Appellant's role is concerned, P.W. 2 has also described in the same way as that of P.W. 1 & in fact the entire crime scenario as stated by P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 are consistent & run at par with one another. Even the evidence of P.W. 4 provide ample support to the prosecution case to some extent adding one more feather to the cap & that he saw three persons running away & the Appellant was one among them & that her attention was drawn hearing hulla of P.W. 2 as "BACHAO BACHAO". Thus on careful scrutiny of evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, no such infirmity or suspicions feature is noticed so as to be eschewed from consideration. The evidence of P.W. 9, the doctor further corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 as he had noticed two incised wounds one over the left shoulder & the other on the centre of the fore-head of P.W. 1 which he reported under Ext. 2. The opinion of this P.W. 9 runs in affirmative that the injury are possible by the sword seized in the case & sent to him for examination. In view of above discussion, I do not find any justification to place my disagreement with the finding of guilt for offence under Sections 324 & 458 IPC rendered against the Appellant by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Judgment convicting the Appellant for offence under Sections 324 & 458 IPC is hereby confirmed & so also the order of sentence which is found to be just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case. Resultantly, the Jail Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.