Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1981 passed by the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in S.T. No. 43/M of 1978, State Vs. Babu Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 717 of 1974, under sections 148, 147, 307 read with 149 I.P.C. P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar. At the very outset it may be mentioned that this appeal had been filed by three convicts/ appellants. Out of the three, two appellants namely Babu Singh and Narain Singh died during pendency of the appeal and the appeal against the appellant Babu Singh was abated vide order dated 3.9.2012 of this court and it abated against appellant Narain Singh vide order dated 21.4.2016 of this court. Now the only surviving appellant is Vijay Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonments for a term of three years under section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months under section 148 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Heard learned counsel for the surviving appellant Vijay Singh and learned AGA for the State. Perused the record. The prosecution story in brief is that an FIR was lodged by one Deshraj Kapoor (PW2) against five persons to the effect that on 17.2.1974 the accused Babu Singh was cutting grass from the medh of his (complainant's) field. When his servant Ramdas prohibited him from doing so, a fight ensued between them and accused Babu Singh left the field threatening the informant's servant to see him in future. On 19.10.1974 at 9.00 A.M. his servant Ramdas had left for his farm along with his cows as per his daily routine, when the witnesses Tekchand and Murli came running to his house and informed that six or seven persons had injured Ramdas by assaulting him mercilessly and his condition is serious. The informant immediately rushed to the spot and saw Ramdas lying on the ground facing downward in a badly injured condition. The informant took him to the hospital and got him admitted there. The informant immediately rushed to the spot and saw Ramdas lying on the ground facing downward in a badly injured condition. The informant took him to the hospital and got him admitted there. When enquired, Ramdas told him that when he was about to reach the culvert of canal, suddenly Babu Singh armed with gun, Narain Singh and Vijay Singh (appellant), both sons of Babu Singh, armed with spears and two other sons of Babu Singh, whose names he did not know, one of whom was armed with spear and the other was armed with lathi along 6 or 7 more persons, reached there and surrounded him from all sides. Babu Singh exhorted with the words " bl jkenkl dks tku ls [kRe dj nks tkus u ik; s" and thereafter all of them attacked on him from all sides causing grievous injuries to him. Ramdas was medically examined and the doctor found the following injuries on his body: 1. Stab wound measurement 1¼" x 1/3" X depth under observation, on the back of right chest. 2. Two stab wounds with clean cut margins on the back of left chest ranging 1¼" x 1/3" X depth under observation and 1½" x 1/3" X depth under observation. 3. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep 3½" above the left ear root. 4. Contused abrasion in an area 6½" x 3/4" on the right side scapular region extending up to right shoulder. 5. Contused abrasion in an area of 2" x 1¼" on the left upper part of scapular region. 6. Contused abrasion in an area of 1½" x 3/4" on the left shoulder region. The I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses including the injured and the doctor, inspected the spot, prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the three appellants. The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court where the charges under sections 148 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. were framed against the appellant from which he denied and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all, out of which two are witnesses of fact and the remaining are of formal nature. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all, out of which two are witnesses of fact and the remaining are of formal nature. The first informant Deshraj Kapoor has been produced as PW2, the injured Ramdas is PW3 and the doctor, who has examined the injured Ramdas has been examined as PW1. PW4 to PW6 are police personnel. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of the appellant was recorded in which he stated that his fields are adjacent to the fields of Deshraj Kapoor. Deshraj Kapoor intended to grab their fields, hence he lodged a false FIR against them. The appellant has also stated that Deshraj Kapoor beig an influential person, the police has filed charge-sheet under his pressure. The learned trial court after considering the evidence, found the prosecution story reliable and trustworthy and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment has been questioned and assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant mainly on the following grounds: 1. The appellants have been convicted on the sole testimony of two highly interested witnesses PW2 and PW3 and there is no independent witness of the locality. 2. The FIR, which is the foundation stone of any criminal case, is based in this case on the information given to the first informant by four eyewitnesses but none of them was examined by the prosecution. Though, out of these four eyewitnesses, one Tekchand had died, but the remaining three eyewitnesses namely Murli, Ram Chandra and Maiku Lal were available. However, they were not examined. Hence on the ground that the prosecution has withheld the material witnesses, adverse inference should have been drawn by the learned trial court against the prosecution but the court below without considering this aspect, wrongly relied upon the prosecution story. 2. The learned trial court has not considered that there was no motive with the appellants to commit the crime. The motive shown by the prosecution is very weak. Moreover, the alleged occurrence shown as motive behind the occurrence had taken place eight months ago, which cannot be said to be the motive of such heinous assault. 3. The statement of Deshraj Kapoor, PW2, is only a hearsay statement as admittedly he was not present on the spot. 4. The statement of the injured Ramdas also suffers from material contradictions. 3. The statement of Deshraj Kapoor, PW2, is only a hearsay statement as admittedly he was not present on the spot. 4. The statement of the injured Ramdas also suffers from material contradictions. Ramdas, in his very first statement given to police has disclosed that he became unconscious immediately after the assault and then he regained his consciousness in the hospital but in the witness box, he improved his earlier statement in wake of the statement of PW2 Deshraj, who has stated that Ramdas had told him about the occurrence while being taken to the hospital. 5. The place of occurrence is doubtful as the I.O. has not collected any blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. 6. The statement of Dr. R. K. Mehrotra (PW1) also raises serious doubts in the prosecution story since he could not explain as to why the injuries were entered in the Accident Register and not in the Medico Legal Register or in Private Medico Legal cases. The doctor could not explain as to why in the injury report prepared by him (Ext Ka1) he did not mention the nature of certain injuries about which he has deposed in the court as of grave nature. 7. Blood stained clothes were not produced in the court. 8. It was a case where truth and falsehood appeared to be inextricably mixed, as such the prosecution case must have been discarded by the trial court. 9. The learned trial court has ignored to consider an important fact that the complainant Deshraj Kapoor was a very influential person of the locality and the police officers were on visiting term with him. Deshraj Kapoor was interested in grabbing the land of others. He also had a greedy eye on the land of the appellants and therefore, he has falsely entangled the appellant in the present case. 10. Learned trial court has also ignored to consider an important fact which is apparent on the face of record that the victim Ramdas was a man of notorious character and had several enemies in the locality and he was admittedly warned by his employer not to indulge in marpeet with others. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court, without considering the aforesaid facts has convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment, hence the impugned judgment be set aside and the appeal be allowed. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court, without considering the aforesaid facts has convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment, hence the impugned judgment be set aside and the appeal be allowed. Per contra learned AGA has contended that learned trial court has rightly relied on the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case; there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured witness; the injuries mentioned in the injury report fully corroborated the statement of the injured witness PW3, whose testimony alone is sufficient to convict the appellants. On the aforesaid grounds learned AGA has submitted that the appeal being devoid of merit, be dismissed. Considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the original record. As out of the three appellants, two have expired and the appeal has abated against those two appellants, the appreciation of evidence in this appeal is to be kept limited only to the role of the sole surviving appellant, Vijay Singh. According the FIR Babu Singh along with his four sons, (two named and two unnamed in the FIR) and 6 or 7 persons, made attack on the injured Ramdas with deadly weapons. The present appellant is said to be armed with spear at the time of the occurrence. The injury report shows that the doctor has found three stab wounds with clean cut margins, one on the back of right chest and two on the back of his left chest apart from some other lacerated wounds and abraded contusions. According to the statement of the injured (PW3) he had seen the appellant at the time of incident, who was armed with a spear. Although he has stated that he could not see who inflicted injury from spear on his back, but he has categorically stated that Vijay (appellant) had spear in his hand. The injured (PW3) has also disclosed about the motive behind the occurrence by stating that as he was serving for Deshraj Kapoor (PW2) since last 25 years and had resisted the encroachment by the appellants family on the fields of his master, they assaulted him. He has corroborated the FIR version by stating that when he fell down after sustaining spear injury in semi conscious state, his master PW2 Deshraj Kapoor took him to the hospital. He has corroborated the FIR version by stating that when he fell down after sustaining spear injury in semi conscious state, his master PW2 Deshraj Kapoor took him to the hospital. PW3 has faced grueling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he is throughout cogent and consistent during his testimony. There appears no reason as to why such a badly injured person would falsely implicate an innocent, exonerating the real culprit? The injury report shows that the injured has sustained three stab wounds on his back, which are not possible unless some sharp edged weapon like spear is inflicted on the back of a person with force. The doctor has stated that those stab wounds must be deep because stitches on those wounds were found in layers. Thus the statement of PW3 as a whole inspire confidence. The Apex Court in the case of Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerela, (2012) 13 SCC 750 has held that "Evidence of a victim of a crime must be placed on a somewhat higher pedestal in terms of credibility attached to it, than evidence of any other witness." In Mohd. Ishaque Vs. State of W.B., (2013) 14 SCC 581 the Apex Court observed that "It is unlikely that an injured witness would spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent person .... whether witnesses are interested persons and whether they had deposed out of some motive cannot be sole criterion for judging credibility of a witness. Main criteria would be whether their physical presence at the place of occurrence was possible and probable." In Mano Dutt Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Apex Court has held as under: "Ordinarily an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence or to involve anybody falsely and in bargain protect real culprit. ................ Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness" The place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence as stated by PW3 finds full corroboration with the site plan. ................ Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness" The place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence as stated by PW3 finds full corroboration with the site plan. Only due to the reason that the I.O. failed to collect blood stained earth from spot and failed to produce the blood stained clothes in the court, the whole prosecution case cannot be discarded in view of the well settled legal position that the latches and lacunae on the part of the I.O. will not give any benefit to the accused. Now the question is whether the appellant, who was armed with spear, was the author of any of the injuries sustained by the injured on his back as admittedly the injured could no see the assailants causing injury on his back. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that when several accused persons were present on the spot, it cannot be said as to who was the author of the stab injuries. He has contended that as per FIR version one more person was also armed with spear at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel has pointed out towards the statement of PW2, Deshraj Kapoor, who has stated that Vijay Singh, Narain Singh and one more person had spear with them. It has also been submitted that the injured himself had not seen as to who had inflicted spear (Ballam) on his back. On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant was the person, who was the author of the stab wounds, inflicted on the back of chest of the injured. I do not find any substance in any of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the fact that the appellant has been charged under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and section 149 I.P.C. provides for vicarious liability of a person for the acts committed by other persons in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. Section 149 I.P.C. is reproduced here as under:- "149. Section 149 I.P.C. is reproduced here as under:- "149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." The prosecution in this case has successfully proved the presence of the appellant on the spot with several other accused persons. This fact has also been found proved that the appellant was armed with a spear at the time of occurrence. Three stab injuries have been found on the back of chest of injured. Hence it does not made any difference as to who had caused those injuries. Moreover, it cannot be expected from such a badly injured witness like PW3 in this case, to exactly notice, who was causing injury on his back. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Major Singh, AIR 199 SC 1073 the Apex Court has held as under:- "It would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memories, which accused was assaulting by the blunt side of the weapon and which was causing injuries by a sharp edged weapon. Even if such a statement is made, it may amount to an exaggeration because when a number of assailants are there, injuries are not inflicted in a manner, which could exactly be noted by the witness, specially when the witness herself was receiving injuries." In view of the aforesaid discussions, there does not appear any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment, in so far as conviction of the appellant under section 148 I.P.C. and Section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. is concerned. However, so far as the sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant is concerned, considering the fact that this appeal is pending in this court since the year 1982, the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1974, thus more than 42 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence, two appellants have already expired during the pendency of this appeal and the present appellant has also become an old person of more than 60 years of age, against whom there is no allegation to have ever repeated any such incident during this period, it would be harsh to send him back to jail for three years as awarded by the learned trial court. The incident in the instant appeal has taken place on 17.2.1974. The appellant has already spent prime years of his life in facing trial and thereafter in prosecuting this appeal continuously for such a long period. Considering all these facts and taking a lenient view in the matter due to the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of three years R.I. as awarded by the trial court for conviction of appellant under section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and eighteen months' R.I. for his conviction under section 148 I.P.C. be reduced for the period already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed by confirming the conviction of the appellant under section 148 and section 307/149 I.P.C. but reducing the sentence to the period already under gone by the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned.