Judgment :- 1. By the present Appeal, appellants are questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 26/04/2000 in Sessions Case No. 56/1998. By the said, appellant No. 1 Pandhari S/o Bhaguram Waghmare is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. Learned trial Court also convicted appellant No. 2 Pushpa D/o Pandhari Waghmare for the said offence, however, directed that she should suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. It is directed in the said order that if the fine amount is recovered from the accused, complainant Vilas Waghmare be paid the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand]. 2. Appellants were charged by the learned court below vide Charge dated 15/04/1999. The Charge reads that on 18/07/1997, in front of the house of complainant, a knife blow was given on the person of complainant Vilas Waghmare with such intention and knowledge that by the said act, the death would have been caused and, therefore, Charge u/s 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. Appellants were also charged for the offence punishable u/s 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants denied the Charge and claimed for their trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses. 3. The prosecution case, as it is disclosed during the course of the trial, can be summarized herein under: Vilas s/o Bhaguram Waghmare [P.W.1] is the first informant. He lodged F.I.R. on 18/07/1997. F.I.R. was disclosing commission of cognizable offence, therefore, an offence was registered vide Crime No. 110/1997 for the offence punishable u/s 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station Officer of police station Renapur. As per the F.I.R., Pandhari, appellant No. 1, is the brother of first informant. They reside adjacent to each other. First informant goes to the agricultural field of one Balu Tare apart from cultivating his own land. F.I.R. further proceeds, that in Bamni village, there exists 4 Acres of land. As per the F.I.R., Pandhari, appellant No. 1, is the brother of first informant. They reside adjacent to each other. First informant goes to the agricultural field of one Balu Tare apart from cultivating his own land. F.I.R. further proceeds, that in Bamni village, there exists 4 Acres of land. Out of that, 2 Acres 2 gunthas land is recorded in the name of the first informant. The said land is cultivated personally by him. At the relevant year, in the said field, first informant had sown Hybrid. According to the F.I.R., appellant No. 1 picked up quarrel with the first informant since last one month on account that first informant should not enter in the agricultural field. F.I.R. further proceeds, that on 18/07/1997, first informant returned from the agricultural field of his master. After getting himself fresh, he was taking dinner in the front court- ard of his house. In between 7.30 – 7.45 p.m., appellant No. 1 Pandhari and his daughter appellant No. 2 Pushpa came in front of his house and started using abusive words as to why the first informant had gone to the agricultural field. Vilas, first informant asked as to why he is being abused, that time, as per the F.I.R., appellant No. 2 Pushpa brought a knife and handed over to appellant No. 1 Pandhari. Appellant No. 1 Pandhari thereafter gave knife blow on the chest of first informant, due to which he received injuries. With this, F.I.R. was lodged. 4. Ashok Kshirsagar [P.W.11] was the Police Sub Inspector at Renapur police station. Injured Vilas [P.W.1] was brought to the police station. He was sent to the Rural hospital, Renapur along with police yadi. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and recorded the F.I.R. of Vilas. On 19/07/1997, spot panchanama [Exh.41] was drawn. He recorded statement of about 19 witnesses on the said date. Accused were arrested by him. After completion of the other usual investigation, Charge Sheet was filed. 5. As observed above, Charge was framed and the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellants. On 19/07/1997, spot panchanama [Exh.41] was drawn. He recorded statement of about 19 witnesses on the said date. Accused were arrested by him. After completion of the other usual investigation, Charge Sheet was filed. 5. As observed above, Charge was framed and the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellants. Learned trial Court, after full dressed trial, acquitted both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 135 of Bombay Police Act, however recorded finding of guilt for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them as observed in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. 6. Heard Mr. V.D.Gunale with Mr. K.B.Autade, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. U.S.Mote, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent – State in extenso. Learned counsels took me through the record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 56/1998. They have also took me, in detail, through the notes of evidence. Mr. V.D.Gunale, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the appellants are falsely implicated in crime. According to him, the false implication is due to the dispute between the brothers on account of agricultural field. According to him, the evidence of P.W. 1 Vilas can not be considered, because it is an interested version. According to him, there is no independent witness. He submitted that the evidence of Mangal [P.W.6] is necessarily to be discarded, she being the wife of Vilas, the first informant. He further submitted that the evidence of Vilas and Mangal is also not unblemished. The said is suffered due to omissions and contradictions. It is, therefore, his submission that the present Criminal Appeal be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned A.P.P. would submit that the evidence of Vilas [P.W.1] is clinching one. He submitted that his evidence is supported by the medical evidence. According to learned A.P.P., learned Judge of the Court below has considered the case of the prosecution correctly and in its true perspective. Therefore, he submitted that the present Criminal Appeal be dismissed. 8. Dr. Parmeshwar Nagnath Suryawanshi [P.W.5] was attached as Medical Officer at Renapur Primary Health Centre. On 18/07/1997, police station Renapur referred Vilas [P.W.1] to him. According to learned A.P.P., learned Judge of the Court below has considered the case of the prosecution correctly and in its true perspective. Therefore, he submitted that the present Criminal Appeal be dismissed. 8. Dr. Parmeshwar Nagnath Suryawanshi [P.W.5] was attached as Medical Officer at Renapur Primary Health Centre. On 18/07/1997, police station Renapur referred Vilas [P.W.1] to him. Vilas was brought to the hospital at 9.30 p.m. On examination of Vilas, he found following injuries: [i] Incised wound on left upper arm, lower 1/3rd antiriorly, size– 1.5x05x0.5 cms., margins were regular, vertical, it was of red colour, age within about 24 hours, simple in nature. [ii] Stab injury, left upper arm, middle 1/3rd laterally, size – 1x0.5x1 cm., margins were regular, vertical, colour red, age within about 24 hours, simple in nature. [iii] Incised wound on chest left, supra mammary area,1.5x0.5 cms., margins were regular, vertical in direction, red colour, age within 24 hours, grievous in nature. [iv] Incised wound on chest right, infra mammary area, 1.5x0.5 cms., margins regular, horizontal in direction, red colour, age within 24 hours. [v] Stab injury on left, thigh upper 1/3 posteriorly 3x1x3 cms., margins were regular, horizontal in direction, red colour, age within 24 hours, simple in nature. [vi] Incised wound on right, little finger at base dorsally 1x0.2 cms., margins regular, horizontal in direction, red colour, age within 24 hours, simple in nature. 9. Evidence of Dr. Parmeshwar Nagnath Suryawanshi [P.W.5] would reveal that aforesaid injuries were caused by sharp and cutting weapon. He referred the patient for further treatment to Civil hospital, Latur. Injury certificate of Vilas [Exh.23] is proved by Dr. Parmeshwar Suryawanshi [P.W.5]. On 19/07/1997, X-ray was taken. According to Dr. Parmeshwar Suryawanshi, injury No. 3 was grievous one. He proved X-ray film [Exh.24]. The patient was required to refer to Ambajogai Medical College and Hospital. According to Dr. Parmeshwar Suryawanshi, injury No. 3 was dangerous to life. 10. Thus, it is crystal clear from the evidence of Dr. Parmeshwar Suryawanshi [P.W.5] and the injury certificate [Exh.23] that Vilas [P.W.1] suffered six injuries, out of that four injuries were incised wound, whereas two injuries were stab wound. Injury No. 3, incised wound on the chest was found to be grievous in nature. 11. The evidence of Vilas [P.W.1], the injured, has thus corroboration from the medical evidence in respect of his claim that he suffered injuries. Injury No. 3, incised wound on the chest was found to be grievous in nature. 11. The evidence of Vilas [P.W.1], the injured, has thus corroboration from the medical evidence in respect of his claim that he suffered injuries. His evidence would reveal that he was assaulted by appellant No. 1 Pandhari on the various parts of his body. He has also identified the muddemal articles. 12. F.I.R. is lodged promptly. As per the available evidence, incident has occurred in between 7.30 – 8.00 p.m. According to the evidence of Ashok Kshirsagar [P.W.11], the Investigating Officer, Vilas [P.W.1] was brought firstly to the police station. However, he was sent immediately to the Rural hospital. No fault can be attributed to this act on the part of the Investigating Officer, since he noticed grievous injury on the chest of Vilas [P.W.1], the injured and, therefore, obviously his natural reaction was to provide the medical aid to the injured. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the F.I.R. was not recorded in the police station immediately, it is fatal to the prosecution case and on that count itself the prosecution case has to be disbelieved, has necessarily to be rejected. Evidence of Ashokkumar Kshirsagar [P.W.11] would reveal that after Vilas was referred to the hospital, he visited the said hospital and recorded the F.I.R. F.I.R. [Exh.12] would reveal that the entry in station diary was taken at 23.45 hrs. on 18/07/1997. Thus, there is no doubt that the F.I.R. was registered promptly. In view of the immediate recording of the F.I.R., concoction and the possibility of falsehood is completely ruled out. As per the prosecution case, the injured was attacked in front courtyard of his house. Spot panchanama [Exh.41] also corroborates the said fact. Spot panchanama would reveal about the existence of blood. Exh. 45 is the panchanama of recovery of knife. 13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and, therefore, false implication of the appellants can not be ruled out, though appears attractive at the first blush, however on the close scrutiny of the entire prosecution case, the said submission is required to be rejected. According to the prosecution, at the time of incidence, Vilas [P.W.1] was taking meals in the front courtyard of his house. According to the prosecution, at the time of incidence, Vilas [P.W.1] was taking meals in the front courtyard of his house. Mangal [P.W.6] being the wife of Vilas, her presence in the house is most natural. Further, it is not the prosecution case that some other persons were present. On the contrary, looking to the time of incidence and in view of the evidence of Sugriv Landge [P.W.2], it appears that the said was dinner time and, therefore, the other residents of the vicinity must be inside their respective houses. Therefore, merely because there are no other witnesses, that by itself does not render the prosecution case as untrustworthy. The truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case is not to be decided on the basis of the number of witnesses. Its truthfulness has to be judged and evaluated from the quality of the evidence of witnesses, who are examined during the trial. Nothing is brought on record by the evidence even to suggest that there is possibility of attack on Vilas [P.W.1] by some other persons. Further, the evidence of Vilas has not suffered from any major omissions or contradictions. His evidence is also supported by his wife Mangal [P.W.6]. Sugriv Landge [P.W.2] has helped Vilas [P.W.1] to reach him to the hospital. His evidence would reveal that during the journey, Vilas has informed him about the quarrel between him and the appellant No. 1 Pandhari. Though the defence has tried to suggest that said is the omission, however, the same was not put to the Investigating Officer, when he was under the cross examination. Thus, it has remained to be proved. 14. Since the evidence of Vilas [P.W.1] and Mangal [P.W.6] is free from doubt and their evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Parmeshwar Suryawanshi and the injury certificate, I see no reason to take different view than taken by the learned trial Court convicting the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Thus, it is amply proved that appellant No. 1 Pandhari has given knife blow on the person of Vilas [P.W.1]. According to the prosecution, knife was provided by appellant No. 2 Pushpa, who is the daughter of appellant No. 1 Pandhari. Appellant No. 2 Pushpa was arrested on 19/07/1997 and she was released on bail on 06/08/1997. 15. Thus, it is amply proved that appellant No. 1 Pandhari has given knife blow on the person of Vilas [P.W.1]. According to the prosecution, knife was provided by appellant No. 2 Pushpa, who is the daughter of appellant No. 1 Pandhari. Appellant No. 2 Pushpa was arrested on 19/07/1997 and she was released on bail on 06/08/1997. Looking to the fact that appellant No. 2 Pushpa has handed over knife to appellant No. 1 Pandhari and looking to the quantum of sentence imposed upon her, it is my considered view that some leniency can be shown in her favour. That leads me to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2000 is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Order of conviction convicting the appellant No. 1 Pandhari s/o Bhaguram Waghmare for the offence punishable u/s 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 26/04/2000 is confirmed. His Appeal is dismissed. (iii) Appellant No. 1 Pandhari s/o Bhaguram Waghmare is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the trial Court is directed to take necessary steps to secure the presence of Appellant No. 1 Pandhari s/o Bhaguram Waghmare to serve out the remaining jail sentence. (iv) The conviction in respect of appellant No. 2 Pushpa d/o Pandhari Waghmare is hereby confirmed. However, her sentence of six months is reduced to the sentence which she has already undergone. (v) Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2000 stands disposed of.