Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2011 and has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 21/01/2013 and further judgment, Order and Sentence dated 22/01/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in the said Sessions Case. 3. Curchorem Police had filed the charge sheet against accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned J.M.F.C., Sanguem by order dated 28/06/2011 committed the case to the Sessions Court and it was allotted to the Trial Court. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 28/08/2009 at 15.00 hours at Madel, Sanvordem, the accused assaulted Shri Damodar Sukdo Naik (PW11) with knife on his face thus causing him bleeding grievous injuries and further aimed firearm towards him with intention to shoot him. It was further alleged that the accused was in possession of the firearm without valid licence/permission from the Competent Authority. 4. Charge was accordingly framed and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined all together 16 witnesses. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted said Damodar Naik (PW11) with a knife on his face and caused him grievous injury and that the accused was carrying with him a loaded pistol without having valid licence. However, the learned Trial Court recorded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 307 of I.P.C. was not applicable and that the offence committed by the accused was covered under Section 326 of I.P.C. The accused was therefore held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the victim, Damodar Vithoba Naik (PW11) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months and for the offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The accused is aggrieved by the above Judgment and Order. 6. Assailing the impugned Judgment, Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, submitted that insofar as the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, was concerned, there was no sufficient evidence on record. He pointed out that though the incident had allegedly occurred on 28/08/2009, the said pistol was received by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.) on 01/09/2010 i.e. almost after an year. He further submitted that according to PW11, the distance between the property and the place of incident was five minutes walking distance whereas according to PW2 and PW3 the said distance was only of 20 metres. He further pointed out from the evidence of PW2 that she supported the prosecution in all respects except on the aspect of assault on PW11. He also pointed out that the two brothers: PW1-Sunil and PW13-Samir had deposed that they were informed that PW11 had fallen down. He therefore contended that there was material change in version. My attention was invited to the medical evidence which revealed that according to PW5 there was laceration but according to PW9 there was incised wound. He therefore submitted that even with regard to the type of injury allegedly sustained by PW11, there was material discrepancy. The learned Counsel emphasized that the incident had allegedly occurred since on the day of incident, PW11 had taken the labourers of the accused for his own work and that gave provocation to the accused. He therefore submitted that Section 326 of I.P.C. was not applicable and that at the most it could be Section 335 of I.P.C. which was applicable to the accused. Counsel further submitted that no material was produced before the District Magistrate who gave sanction and therefore there was nothing for subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate. He therefore submitted that Section 326 of I.P.C. was not applicable and that at the most it could be Section 335 of I.P.C. which was applicable to the accused. Counsel further submitted that no material was produced before the District Magistrate who gave sanction and therefore there was nothing for subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate. He therefore alleged that the sanction was not valid. Insofar as the recovery of the pistol, at the instance of the accused, is concerned, the learned Counsel canvassed that the said recovery was effected from an open public place and therefore no value could be given to such recovery. He pointed out from the evidence of PW11 that there was no enmity between PW11 and the accused. He therefore contended that there was no reason for the accused to attack PW11. He submitted that there were major discrepancies even with regard to the length of the knife. He canvassed that the testimony of the injured namely PW11 did not inspire confidence. He urged that the various factors mentioned above bring out serious deficiencies in the veracity, credence and evidentiary value of the main prosecution witnesses and render the prosecution story, unreliable. Counsel submitted that even assuming that the story given by PW11 was true, then also it would not attract Section 326 of I.P.C. and at the most it would be Section 335 of I.P.C. He submitted that the accused was already in jail for a period of about one month and he is 70 years old and the said period of detention should be sufficient punishment to the accused coupled with fine/compensation, in the interest of justice. According to him, no purpose will be served by sending him to jail after having gone through the agony of imprisonment for about a month. Learned Counsel, thus, urged that the accused be acquitted or in the alternative the offence be reduced to Section 335 of I.P.C. and the sentence be reduced to imprisonment already undergone. 7. In response, Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, fully supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that in the present case the evidence was very clear and sufficient for proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. as well as Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, beyond all reasonable doubts. Amonkar, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, fully supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that in the present case the evidence was very clear and sufficient for proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. as well as Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, beyond all reasonable doubts. He submitted that PW2 and PW3 were the labourers who were working for PW11 as well as for the accused and therefore they had no reason to tell lies. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, some discrepancies in time, medical evidence on type of injury, etc., as pointed out by the learned counsel, for the accused were minor and no credence could be given to such discrepancies. He further submitted that, even otherwise, the discrepancy in the medical evidence regarding the type of wound was not relevant since there was ocular evidence of PW11 and PW3 on record. He then submitted that the knife and pistol were recovered at the instance of the accused and these recoveries were duly proved. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Section 335 of the I.P.C. was not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since there was no grave and sudden provocation given to the accused by PW11. He contended that present is a case where only one view is possible and the said view has been taken by the learned Trial Court. He therefore urged that there is no scope for interference with the impugned Judgment and Order. 8. I have minutely and carefully examined the original record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 17/2011 and have considered all the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 9. Let us, at the first instance, take up the evidence of PW11, Shri Damodar Naik, who was the injured person in the present case. He deposed that on 28/08/2009, he closed his shop situated at Sanvordem, Tisk as usual and left for his residence for lunch. After taking lunch he took rest and by about 2.30 p.m. he started for his property known as Korpe, Santanamol, situated at Madel, Sanvordem on his scooter bearing no. GA-09/C-6282. He saw his labourers working in the property where he reached by about 3.00 p.m. He named the said labourers as Luizinha Vaz and Marcelina Vaz. After taking lunch he took rest and by about 2.30 p.m. he started for his property known as Korpe, Santanamol, situated at Madel, Sanvordem on his scooter bearing no. GA-09/C-6282. He saw his labourers working in the property where he reached by about 3.00 p.m. He named the said labourers as Luizinha Vaz and Marcelina Vaz. According to him, the said labourers informed him that somebody had pelted stones on zinc shed which was inside the property. PW11 then gave refreshments to his workers and also gave instructions for further work and then proceeded towards his scooter and when he reached on his scooter near three road junction, the accused Pundalik Bhandari came infront of him and stopped the scooter. PW11 further deposed that he parked the scooter and the accused threatened him that he would kill him and removed a knife and attacked with the same on the left side of his face and cut left portion of his face with that knife. PW11 started shouting calling Luizinha and Marcelina. PW11 stated that both the labourers came running towards him and the knife fell down from the hands of the accused and thereafter the accused removed a pistol and aimed it towards PW11 due to which PW11 pushed the hand of the accused and threw aside the pistol. PW11 stated that after seeing the labourers the accused collected knife and pistol and ran away from the spot. One of his labourers lifted PW11 and brought him to the main road. He deposed that the said worker stopped one passer by who was proceeding on scooter and requested him to ring at his residence and accordingly the said person phoned the nephew of PW11 by name Sunil. PW11 deposed that after some time first his nephew Samir came with a van and thereafter Sunil came and then he was taken to Government Hospital at Kakoda. PW11 stated that from the said Government Hospital, after examination, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Margao and from there he was transferred to Goa Medical College at Bambolim. He stated that Sunil accompanied him till Government Hospital at Kakoda whereas Samir accompanied him till G.M.C. Bambolim. PW11 further deposed that in G.M.C. he was medically examined by a doctor and then referred to Goa Dental College Bambolim. According to him, he was admitted to the hospital for 11 (eleven) days. He stated that Sunil accompanied him till Government Hospital at Kakoda whereas Samir accompanied him till G.M.C. Bambolim. PW11 further deposed that in G.M.C. he was medically examined by a doctor and then referred to Goa Dental College Bambolim. According to him, he was admitted to the hospital for 11 (eleven) days. PW11 stated that he came to know subsequently that the motive for the crime was that PW11 engaged the labourers of the accused, in his property. PW 11 has described the knife as having length of about 1 feet and it had a sharp edge and also had a handle of reddish colour. PW11 was then shown the knife in the open Court and he identified the same. He also identified the pistol which was shown to him in the Court. PW 11 was also shown the sketch of the scene of offence which is at Exhibit 30. He identified portions marked as “A” and “B” in that sketch as belonging to him and also showed the junction at point “B”. PW11 showed in the open Court the long scar on the left side of his face which according to him was due to the said assault committed by the accused with the knife. The Trial Court had noted that the said scar was running from near the nose and going till near the ear. According to PW11 since after the incident he still did not have any sensation on a part of his forehead and his eye also did not feel movement and he could hear properly. According to him, there was no normal mobility on the left side inside his mouth. He stated that his face had lost its shape and it stretched more towards right hand side. 10. The aforesaid smooth and natural narration of facts by PW11 would indicate that he gave a full truthful account of the incidence. A minute scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW11 reveals that he is not at all shaken on material aspects in the cross-examination. PW11 stated that there was no enmity between him and his family on one side and the accused and his family on the other side. However, the reason for the accused to suddenly assault PW11 was known to him later on. The said labourers namely Luizina Vaz and Marcelina Vaz were also working in the property of the accused. PW11 stated that there was no enmity between him and his family on one side and the accused and his family on the other side. However, the reason for the accused to suddenly assault PW11 was known to him later on. The said labourers namely Luizina Vaz and Marcelina Vaz were also working in the property of the accused. PW11 stated that he came to know later on that the accused had told public that the PW11 had taken his labourers in the property of PW11. He explained that the said pistol was of single barrel. He further stated that after about one month from the date of incident he came to know that the accused assaulted him on account of labourers who were working in his property. He stated that the accused was wearing bluish colour pant at the time of incident. He stated that from his property, the main road is at a distance of five minutes walk. PW11 further stated in the cross-examination that the accused is his daiji. Not a single omission was found in the testimony of PW11 viz-a-viz his police statement. The testimony of PW11, as has been rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, inspired confidence and was wholly reliable. 11. There was full corroboration to the testimony of PW11 from one of the two labourers, namely Luizinha Vaz (PW3) and part corroboration from the other labourer, namely Marcelina Vaz (PW2). 12. PW3, Smt. Luizinha Vaz deposed that she does labour work for any person who calls her and that she along with Marcelina Vaz used to go to the property of the accused for work. She stated that they also used to go to the property of Damodar Naik (PW11) at Santanamol Madel. Mrs. Marcelina Vaz is her sister-in-law. According to PW3 about two days prior to the incident Marcelina Vaz and she were called for work in the property of Damodar Naik where they worked for about two days. Her deposition was recorded on 18/02/2013. She deposed that on 28th of August about two and half years back, Marcelina and she went to the property of Damodar Naik at about 2.00 p.m. and started cleaning the bushes. She deposed that while they were working someone pelted stones on the shed of Damodar Naik. Her deposition was recorded on 18/02/2013. She deposed that on 28th of August about two and half years back, Marcelina and she went to the property of Damodar Naik at about 2.00 p.m. and started cleaning the bushes. She deposed that while they were working someone pelted stones on the shed of Damodar Naik. She further deposed that at 3.00p.m. Damodar Naik came there on his scooter and gave them tea and snacks. She further deposed that after giving some instructions regarding work Damodar proceeded to his scooter to go to his house and after sometime Damodar loudly called out “Marcelina”. She stated that both of them rushed towards Damodar for help and on reaching at spot they saw that the accused was attacking Damodar with the knife on his left cheek and he also aimed pistol towards Damodar and Damodar pushed the said pistol which fell on the ground. She stated that the knife as well as the pistol were lifted by the accused and were taken away by him. She stated that Damodar suffered bleeding injury on his left cheek and they both assisted him and took him near the road. She further deposed that one person was passing on the said road on a scooter and they stopped him and requested him to phone Sunil who is the son of the brother of Damodar. According to PW3, the said person had phoned Sunil and Samir who is the brother of Sunil reached the spot on a four wheeler and put the Damodar in the said vehicle and took him to the hospital at Kakoda. The knife and pistol were both shown to PW3 in the open Court and she identified both the said articles. 13. Thus, it can be seen that PW3 stated almost the same things as stated by PW11. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 reveals that she stood firmly to the test of cross-examination though she was an illiterate witness who could not even put signature. There was nothing in the cross-examination of PW3 which could render her testimony, unreliable. PW3 used to work in the property of the accused also. She had no reason to depose against the accused. The Trial Court, in my considered view, rightly relied upon the testimony of this witness, as the same was wholly reliable. 14. There was nothing in the cross-examination of PW3 which could render her testimony, unreliable. PW3 used to work in the property of the accused also. She had no reason to depose against the accused. The Trial Court, in my considered view, rightly relied upon the testimony of this witness, as the same was wholly reliable. 14. PW2, Smt. Marcelina Vaz, the sister-in-law of PW3, was other labourer engaged by PW11. She deposed that she had gone to the property of Damodar Naik about two and half years back along with Luizinha Vaz and both had gone there in the morning time at about 8.00 a.m. and then came back for lunch and again went back at about 2.00 p.m. and while they were working they heard shouts of Damodar Naik. She stated that Damodar Naik had visited the property to inspect the work and was retuning back to his two wheeler when they heard the shouts. PW2 further stated that after the shouts, Damodar came in front of them and they took him to the road. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to the Trial Court for the permission to cross-examine PW2, as she was resiling from her police statement. In her cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that Damodar Naik had called her and Luizinha Vaz for work in his farm at Santanamol, Madel and that they worked in that farm for two days i.e. on 25/08/2009 and 26/08/2009. She stated that in the morning time somebody had pelted stones on the shed of Damodar Naik in the area in which they were working. She had further stated that Damodar came to the farm on his scooter at about 4.00 p.m. and gave them some refreshments. She was confronted with her police statement wherein the timing was mentioned as 3.00p.m. She admitted that Damodar inquired from them as to why they did not come for work in the morning and they told him that due to some personal work they could not come in the morning session and also told him that somebody had pelted stones on his shed. PW2 further admitted that Damodar gave them some snacks and instructions to do work and thereafter proceeded back to his scooter for his residence. However, PW4 denied the suggestion that the Damodar called out her by calling her name “Marcelina” and requested to help him. PW2 further admitted that Damodar gave them some snacks and instructions to do work and thereafter proceeded back to his scooter for his residence. However, PW4 denied the suggestion that the Damodar called out her by calling her name “Marcelina” and requested to help him. She stated that she did not hear Damodar calling out her name. However, she further added that she heard Damodar shouting. She has further stated that on hearing the shouts they both went running towards Damodar and met him on the way. She denied the suggestion that they saw Damodar at a distance of about 20 metres and that the accused was attacking Damodar with knife. She also denied the suggestion that the accused pointed out gun towards Damodar and that Damodar caught hold of the hands of the accused and threw aside the gun. She admitted that Damodar had sustained deep cut bleeding injury on his left cheek and that both of them had brought him to the main road and there they had requested one passer by to phone Sunil, nephew of Damodar and to inform about the incident. According to PW2, Luizinha requested to the said passer by to do so. She admitted that she had cordial relations with the accused. PW2 was confronted with her police statement where she had stated that the accused had assaulted Damodar with knife on cheek and pointed out gun at him and that Sunil and Samir had shifted Damodar to a hospital in vehicle. PW16, Shri Arjun Sangodkar, the then PSI of Curchorem Police Station, who investigated this case, deposed that PW2 did tell him that the accused assaulted Damodar with knife and pointed out a gun at him. 15. Thus, it can be seen that PW2 partly supported the prosecution but when it came to the main point of assault by the accused on PW11, she did not support the prosecution. However, PW2 cannot be said to have destroyed the case of prosecution. She did not say that PW11 was not assaulted by the accused. On the contrary, in her police statement, she had stated all the relevant facts, regarding assault, as confirmed by the Investigating Officer. 16. Then, there was supporting evidence from the two brothers namely Sunil Naik and Sameer Naik, which was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 17. On the contrary, in her police statement, she had stated all the relevant facts, regarding assault, as confirmed by the Investigating Officer. 16. Then, there was supporting evidence from the two brothers namely Sunil Naik and Sameer Naik, which was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. 17. PW1 is the said Sunil Naik, who is the nephew of the injured PW11. PW1 deposed that his uncle Damodar Naik(PW11) has his agricultural property at Madel, Mirabhag and has been looking after the same. He further deposed that on 28/08/2009 at about 3.30p.m., when he was in Curchorem Market, he received a phone call on his mobile from somebody informing that his uncle Damodar had fallen down on road at Madel leading to his farm and he was bleeding profusely. PW1 phoned his brother Samir Naik and informed about the said fact and told him to proceed to the spot at Madel to verify the facts. PW1 deposed that he also rushed to the spot and saw that Samir Naik had already reached there and was putting his uncle into the vehicle. PW1 further deposed that his uncle was bleeding profusely from the left cheek and they took him to U.P.H.C. Curchorem, Kakoda. According to PW1, on inquiry his uncle told that when he had gone to his farm at Madel, Pundalik Bhandari obstructed him on the way and threatened to kill him and further attacked him on his left cheek due to which he sustained bleeding injury and then Pandurang pointed a firearm at him and his uncle caught hold of his arm and threw the firearm and thereafter he came running towards the road and fell down on the road. PW1 further deposed that from U.P.H.C. Curchorem Kakoda his uncle was taken to G.M.C. Bambolim. PW1 lodged the complaint at Curchorem Police Station on 28/08/2009 itself, in the afternoon time. The said complaint is at Exhibit 12. He specifically stated that at the place where his uncle was fallen two ladies were also present by name Marcelina Vaz and Luizinha Vaz. According to him, on 29/08/2009 he showed the said spot to Curchorem Police and police drew the panchanama of scene of offence at around 7.30 a.m. PW1 identified the accused as the said Pandurang Bhandari. 18. The said Samir Naik was examined as PW13. According to him, on 29/08/2009 he showed the said spot to Curchorem Police and police drew the panchanama of scene of offence at around 7.30 a.m. PW1 identified the accused as the said Pandurang Bhandari. 18. The said Samir Naik was examined as PW13. PW13 deposed that Damodar Naik is his paternal uncle and that on 28/08/2009 when he was at his residence at about 3.30p.m., his brother Sunil phoned him on his mobile and informed that Damodar had fallen down and was bleeding at Madel near his property. On hearing this, PW13 immediately rushed to the spot in his van and saw Damodar sitting and by his side were Luizinha Vaz and Marcelina Vaz. He saw that blood was oozing from the left cheek of Damodar. According to PW13, Sunil also reached at the spot and he(PW13) put Damodar in his van and took him to Government Hospital, Kakoda. PW 13 stated that in the van Damodar told him that he had gone to his property at about 3.00p.m. and when he returned back and was on his scooter, Pandurang Bhandari obstructed him, removed knife and assaulted him with knife and further threatened to kill him and also aimed pistol at him and that his uncle threw away the said pistol. PW13 further deposed that his uncle told him that due to assault by knife he had sustained injury on his left cheek and when the said labourers came to the spot, Pundalik ran away by taking away knife and pistol. PW12 deposed that at Kakoda Hospital, some treatment was given to Damodar and thereafter he was referred to Hospicio Hospital, Margao and from there he was taken to G.M.C., Bambolim. According to PW13, Sunil accompanied them only till Kakoda Hospital and thereafter went to lodge the complaint whereas PW13 remained with the victim through out till G.M.C. Hospital. PW13 also identified the accused as the said Pandurang Bhandari. 19. PW1 and PW13 were not eye witnesses. Similarly, the person who called Sunil on his phone was also not an eye witness. The said person had seen Damodar lying on the road and therefore must have simply told Sunil that Damodar had fallen down. Since the above witnesses were not eye witnesses, it cannot be said that they changed the version of incident. Similarly, the person who called Sunil on his phone was also not an eye witness. The said person had seen Damodar lying on the road and therefore must have simply told Sunil that Damodar had fallen down. Since the above witnesses were not eye witnesses, it cannot be said that they changed the version of incident. A perusal of cross-examination of PW 1 and 13 revealed that they were not at all shaken and that they were truthful witnesses. PW1 and PW13 had fully corroborated each other and they had firmly stood to the test of cross-examination. 20. The ocular testimony of PW11 had strong support of medical evidence which confirmed the injury and that the same was grievous in nature, caused by sharp object. 21. PW9, Dr. (Ms.) Sundara Bhangui was attached to Community Health Centre, Curchorem on 28/08/2009. On that date at about 5.30 p.m. she examined Damodar Naik with history of assault. She stated that there was incised bleeding wound, 10cms. x 4cms., on left cheek caused by sharp object, within less than six hours. The hurt certificate issued by PW9 is at Exhibit 41. According to PW9, the said injury could have been caused by the knife shown to her in the Court. She referred the patient to Hospicio Hospital, Margao for further treatment. PW9 opined that incised wound cannot be a laceration or abrasion. 22. PW10, Dr. Sayed Sarfaraj Ahmed was working at G.M.C. Hospital as Chief Medical Officer at the relevant time. On 28/08/2009 at around 7.52 p.m., he examined Damodar Naik (PW11). According to PW10, history was given by patient himself that he was assaulted with a knife. On examination PW10 found a laceration over left maxillary region measuring 10cm x 4cm x 1cm with fracture left maxillary sinus and left zygomatic arch, caused by sharp object. Exhibit-45 is the hurt certificate issued by PW10 wherein he mentioned that injury was caused by hard and blunt object. However, PW 10 had explained in his deposition that by mistake he mentioned in the hurt certificate that the injury was caused by blunt and hard object. According to PW 10, the nature of the injury was grievous and X-ray as well as CT scan was done and patient was referred to Department of Oral Maxillary Facial Surgery and was admitted there. According to PW 10, the nature of the injury was grievous and X-ray as well as CT scan was done and patient was referred to Department of Oral Maxillary Facial Surgery and was admitted there. PW10 was shown the knife and he stated that such knife could cause the said injury. PW10 had also deposed in his cross-examination that abrasion, laceration and incised wound are not the same type of injuries and incised wound was not an abrasion. 23. PW5, Dr. Gaurav Nagarsekar was the surgeon attached to the Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in Goa Dental College and Hospital, Bambolim. He examined Damodar Naik on 28/08/2009. PW5, in his examination-in-chief gave the time of examination as 4.30p.m. However, in his cross-examination, he clarified that he had examined Damodar much after 4.30 p.m. and that the time of examination as 4.30p.m. mentioned by him earlier was by mistake. According to PW5, patient was referred from Hospicio Hospital Margao and was bleeding from nose and mouth and there were two lacerations on left forearm and deep contused lacerated wound measuring 10 cm x 4cm x 3 cm on left side of face, extending from lateral wall of nose to left tragus. There was swelling on the left side of face and damage to facial nerve. PW 5 stated that CT scan was done which showed fracture to lateral and anterior wall of left maxillary sinus and zygomatic arch on left side. He stated that the nature of injury was grievous and patient was admitted on 28/08/2009 and was discharged on 07/09/2009. Exhibit 25 is the medico-legal certificate issued by him. 24. No doubt there was discrepancy in the medical evidence, insofar as the type of injury, was concerned. According to PW 9, the injury was incised wound whereas according to PW 5 and PW10 it was a laceration. All the doctors have corroborated each other in saying that a laceration and incised wound are not same type of wound. Be that as it may, the fact that PW11 had sustained injury over left side of cheek and that there was a fracture beneath the said injury was duly proved by the medical evidence. There was no variation between medical evidence and testimony of eye witnesses. There was no difference in opinion regarding the fracture sustained by PW11. Be that as it may, the fact that PW11 had sustained injury over left side of cheek and that there was a fracture beneath the said injury was duly proved by the medical evidence. There was no variation between medical evidence and testimony of eye witnesses. There was no difference in opinion regarding the fracture sustained by PW11. The discrepancy in the medical evidence was only regarding the type of the injury, and since two doctors stated that the injury was a laceration, the same could be believed. Such discrepancy need not render the case of the prosecution unreliable. 25. PW7, Atmaram Vaingankar, an accountant, thus a respectable educated person, acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of scene of offence and sketch Exhibit. 30-Colly. PW7 deposed that this panchanama was drawn on 29/08/2009 and that the scene of offence was at Korangani Santanamol Madel and that one Sunil, showed the spot to them. According to PW7, the spot was a three road junction that is one road proceeding to Mirabagh, second road to Korangani and the third road going to the property of Damodar. PW7 deposed that it was jungle area having forest trees and that the panchanama was conducted between 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. and the sketch was also drawn. PW7 identified his signature on the panchanama and on the sketch which are at Exhibit 30-Colly. 26. In order to further strengthen then testimony of PW11, there is circumstantial evidence of disclosure about and recovery of the knife and pistol, at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 27. PW7, said Shri Atmaram Vaingankar, also acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of disclosure and recovery of knife at the instance of the accused. PW7 deposed that on 31/08/2009 he acted as a panch witness in another panchanama which was initially conducted at Curchorem Police station in the cabin of P.S.I. Sangodkar. He deposed that there was another panch witness by name Ashok and they were shown the accused who disclosed that he was ready to show the knife and the place where it was hidden by him. According to PW7 the said part of the panchanama was written at the police station at 11.00 am and it lasted for about half an hour. According to PW7 the said part of the panchanama was written at the police station at 11.00 am and it lasted for about half an hour. He identified his signature on the said part of the panchanama as also the signature of the other panch witness at point 'B'. PW7 deposed that Pandurang(accused) narrated the incident in Konkani and the same was recorded in the panchanama in Konkani. PW7 further deposed that they all left the police station in a police jeep along with sealing material and the accused told the driver to take the vehicle towards Pontemol side and thereafter towards Mirabagh road and then to Costimol from where the vehicle was directed towards left hand side and then towards Korangani. PW7 stated that the jeep was stopped at Korangani near one hut and they got down from the vehicle. He deposed that the accused took them to the said hut, in which there were plastic barrels, cans, a cement water tank etc., and removed a knife from the backside of the plastic barrel and handed it over to the P.S.I. PW7 deposed that P.S.I. took the measurements of the knife and that the length of the knife was 11cms. He explained that length of the handle of knife was 3.5 cms whereas that of the blade was 7.5cms. According to him, one side of the knife was having sharp edge and its handle was red in colour. He deposed that the said knife was put in a polythene bag and thereafter in an envelope of brown colour which was sealed. The signatures of panchas were taken on the envelope. PW7 identified his signatures on the panchanama as well as on the envelope and he also identified the said knife. During the cross-examination of PW7, it appears that the length of the knife was measured in the Court and it was found to be 29cms long with handle of the length of 9 cms and blade of 18 cms. Except the said discrepancy about the length of the knife, there was no other infirmity pointed out in the cross-examination of PW7. PW7 fully corroborated the contents of the disclosure cum recovery panchanama which was at Exhibit 31. 28. PW8, Shri Manohar Vadiyar acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of disclosure cum recovery in respect of the pistol. PW7 fully corroborated the contents of the disclosure cum recovery panchanama which was at Exhibit 31. 28. PW8, Shri Manohar Vadiyar acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of disclosure cum recovery in respect of the pistol. PW8 deposed that on 05/09/2009 he acted as one of the panch witnesses and there was another panch witness by name Rajesh. He deposed that in the cabin of PSI Arjun Sangodkar of Curchorem Police Station, the accused stated that he will show the gun saying that he had hidden it in his property. PW8 stated that this part of the panchanama started at 10.15 a.m. PW8 identified his signature on that part of the panchanama. Thereafter, the panchas and other members of the team were taken by the accused to his property at Korangani. The accused took the panchas and other police members to a tree where there were dry leaves and from underneath the dry leaves he took out the pistol and handed it over to the P.S.I. The measurements of the pistol were taken and its length was found to be 30cms. PW8 deposed that there were wooden plates on both the sides of the pistol and that P.S.I. opened it and removed the cartridge from the said pistol. Then the pistol was attached and sealed after putting in a polythene bag and thereafter in an envelope. PW8 deposed that this part of the panchanama was concluded at about 12.40 p.m. and that even photographs were clicked. PW8 identified his signature on the panchanama and also identified the pistol which was shown to him in the Court. He also identified the cartridge which was separately packed and sealed. The deposition of PW8 was also not shaken in the cross-examination. 29. PW14, Dr. S. S. Murthy, the Senior Scientific Officer of C.F.S.L. Hyderabad stated that while he was working there, two sealed envelopes were received on 01/09/2010 and one of them contained one country made pistol and the other sealed envelope contained one misfired cartridge of 8 mm/.315” caliber. He stated that seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression. PW14 examined the said exhibits and found that the said firearm was a country made pistol and the cartridge was of 8 mm/.315” caliber rifle cartridge manufactured in Kirkee factory, Pune, India. He stated that seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression. PW14 examined the said exhibits and found that the said firearm was a country made pistol and the cartridge was of 8 mm/.315” caliber rifle cartridge manufactured in Kirkee factory, Pune, India. According to PW 14, the country made pistol was test fired in the laboratory and found to be in a working condition. Even the said misfired rifle cartridge was test fired through the said country made pistol and thus being found to be a live cartridge. The report of examination of C.F.S.L. is at Exhibit 52. 30. As contended by the learned Counsel for the accused, there was lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the pistol to C.F.S.L. immediately. The C.F.S.L., Hyderabad received the same on 01/09/2010, which was more than 11 months after it was recovered. However, the examination of pistol by C.F.S.L. was only for knowing whether it was a real pistol which could be fired. The evidence of PW14 and his examination report in Exhibit 52 duly proved that the said firearm was a pistol in a working condition and it contained a live cartridge. The pistol was not the weapon of assault, in the present case. Possession of the same with the accused, without valid licence had been proved by the prosecution and this is punishable under Section 3 read with section 25 of the Arms Act. Thus, the said delay in forwarding the pistol to C.F.S.L. does not come to the benefit of the accused. 31. PW4, Shri Sandesh Gadkar, the Police Constable attached to Curchorem Police Station, had carried sealing material along with him on 05/09/2009 during the recovery panchanama of knife and had clicked photographs. The said photographs along with negatives are at Exhibit 19-Colly. The pistol is seen in one of the said photographs and PW14 identified the said pistol. 32. PW6, Shri Gokuldar Naik was the District Magistrate, South Goa in the year 2010 and he issued sanction order, to prosecute the accused for offence under the Arms Act. The said sanction order is at Exhibit 28. 33. PW12, A.S.I. Mohan Phadnis had recorded the statement of injured Damodar Naik i.e. PW11 on 29/08/2009 in G.M.C. Hospital, Bambolim. 34. PW15 P.S.I. Vijaynath Kavlekar collected final hurt certificate of PW11 from Dr. The said sanction order is at Exhibit 28. 33. PW12, A.S.I. Mohan Phadnis had recorded the statement of injured Damodar Naik i.e. PW11 on 29/08/2009 in G.M.C. Hospital, Bambolim. 34. PW15 P.S.I. Vijaynath Kavlekar collected final hurt certificate of PW11 from Dr. Nagarsekar and he sent letter to the District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. He also forwarded the exhibits to the Superintendent of Police, CID with a request to forward the same to C.F.S.L. Hyderabad for ballistic examination. After the investigation was completed, the charge sheet was filed by PW15. 35. Lastly, PW16 Shri Arjun Sangodkar, the Police Sub Inspector carried out the major investigation in the present case like recording of the complaint (Exhibit 12), lodged by PW1, registering the Crime, conducting panchanamas of scene of offence, arrest of accused, disclosure cum recovery panchanamas of knife and pistol, etc. He recorded the statements of various witnesses. 36. As has been rightly held by the learned Trial Court, the evidence of all the above witnesses prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted PW11 with knife on his left cheek, thereby causing grievous hurt and had also aimed the gun at him. Merely because there was some discrepancy in the medical evidence regarding the type of injury sustained by PW11 and length of the knife, that, in my considered view, did not render the case of the prosecution unreliable. There was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There was neither major discrepancy nor an iota of real doubt in the prosecution case. Since grievous injury was caused to PW11, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court rightly held that Section which was applicable was 326 of I.P.C. and not Section 307 of I.PC. The contention of learned Counsel for the accused that Section 326 of I.P.C. was not applicable and that circumstances were such as to attract Section 335 of I.P.C. has no substance. For application of Section 335 of I.P.C., there had to be grave and sudden provocation and the accused must not intend to cause grievous injury. The case does not contain any ingredient of Section 335 of I.P.C. 37. Coming to the quantum of sentence, merely because the accused is now 70 years old, that cannot be taken as ground for releasing him. The case does not contain any ingredient of Section 335 of I.P.C. 37. Coming to the quantum of sentence, merely because the accused is now 70 years old, that cannot be taken as ground for releasing him. When the Trial Court imposed sentence, the accused was 68 years old and this fact was brought to the notice of the Trial Court which observed that the said age and also the fact that he had family were not mitigating circumstances. The offence was of serious nature. The injured(PW11) was present in this Court. The scar has remained on the face of PW11 and there is disfigurement in the face. The facial nerve has damaged. According to him, his hearing which had impaired prior to the incident has aggravated and his eye cannot feel movement and inside the mouth, there is no proper mobility. Merely because PW11 called PW2 and PW3, who used to work for accused, to work in his property, the accused went to the extent of teaching a lesson to PW11 by causing grievous injury, which left its mark and effect till death. A punishment for an offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. should be severe when injuries inflicted are caused out of vindictiveness. Injury of the type caused to PW11 calls for deterrent sentence. Under Section 326 of I.P.C., punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine can be imposed. The punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of four years, imposed by the Trial court, cannot be termed as harsh or unreasonable. In view of the above, I do not see any substance in the present appeal which is bound to be rejected. 38. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant (accused) shall surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao within a period of 30 days from today, in order to undergo the sentence, failing which appropriate steps shall be taken for his arrest and sending him to jail for undergoing sentence. 39. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.