Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.1982 passed by IVth Additional Session Judge, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 322 of 1980 (State Vs. chhabbu) arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 1980 registered under Sections 307, 324, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi. The appeal was admitted and prayer for bail application was allowed on 27.01.1982. 2. Since none appeared on behalf of appellant hence non-bailable warrant was issued and he was arrested and sent to jail. He is in judicial custody since 12.08.2016. 3. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant and Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared on behalf of State and perused the record. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the F.I.R. was lodged by Brij Mohan Rawat (father of victim Smt. Meena Devi) s/o Ram Narayan, r/o Mohalla Ragiya Mohal, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi on 10.09.1980 at 10:25 a.m. at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. According to prosecution case, informant was not present in the house rather he was on duty, his wife was also not present in the house and his daughter-victim Smt. Meena Devi aged about 16years, who was married was alone in the house. His son and his wife had also gone to attend their duties. Informant Brij Mohan Rawat was informed by one Bihari Lal that accused-appellant Chhabbu had assaulted his daughter Smt. Meena Devi with knife and he had also inflicted injuries upon himself. After receiving such information, he rushed to his house and saw the crowd there. Information’s were collected there where Kishan Lal and Punwasi were also present. It was informed by them that at about 08:30 a.m., accused Chhabbu entered into the house when Smt. Meena Devi was alone in the house and tried to outrage her modesty. She raised objection and protested and also raised alarm, then accused assaulted with knife to Smt. Meena Devi causing number of injuries. After hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Meena Devi when neighbours and other persons reached then he also inflicted injuries upon himself. When he reached there he found that both were injured. Smt. Meena Devi was taken to hospital by her mother. The police, who was on patrolling duty reached at the place of incident. After hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Meena Devi when neighbours and other persons reached then he also inflicted injuries upon himself. When he reached there he found that both were injured. Smt. Meena Devi was taken to hospital by her mother. The police, who was on patrolling duty reached at the place of incident. Informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. which was got written by Kishan Lal (PW1). 5. After F.I.R. was lodged and registered, the investigation was taken over by Sri S.P. Singh, Sub Inspector, P.S. Cantt. He reached at the place of incident and recorded the statement of informant and other witnesses, inspected the place of incident, collected the blood-stained knife and also collected the broken bangles, blood-stained and plain mud from the place of incident and sealed in separate container in presence of the witnesses. He went to hospital, recorded the statement of Smt. Kamla Devi (mother of the victim), however, statement of victim could not be recorded as she was not in a position to give statement as she was unconscious. He went to the other 'Ward' where accused Chhabbu was admitted in the supervision of Constable Indrapal Singh and interrogated the appellant Chhabbu. He also recorded statement of constable Indrapal Singh. Thereafter on 11.09.1980, he recorded the statement of injured victim Smt. Meena Devi and perused the injury report. The statement of other witnesses were recorded and after completing certain formalities the charge-sheet was submitted. 6. After submission of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant Chhabbu was charged under Section 307, 354/511, 452, 309 I.P.C., he denied the charges and pleaded to be tried. 7. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Kishan Lal was examined as PW1. Punwasi, eye witness was examined as PW2, injured-victim Smt. Meena Devi was examined as PW3, Dr. Asha Ram Tripathi who examined the injuries of Smt. Meena Devi and appellant Chhabbu was examined as PW4. Brij Mohan, informant (father of victim) was examined as PW5, Constable Indra Pal Singh, who was on patrolling duty and who took injured appellant to the hospital was examined as PW6. The I.O. Surya Pal Singh was examined as PW7. 8. After the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation. The I.O. Surya Pal Singh was examined as PW7. 8. After the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation. He stated that before the occurrence he was living as tenant in the house of Brij Mohan. He developed the relationship with Smt. Meena Devi and subsequently they developed the illicit relation and established physical relationship. Even she conceive for which abortion took place on pressure of her parents. The appellant wanted to marry victim Smt. Meena Devi, which was not accepted by her parents, her marriage was settled somewhere else and when he informed regarding the affair with Smt. Meena Devi, the marriage was broken. Subsequently, she was married at another place against her wishes. They continue physical relationship and on the date of incident, when they were seen in objectionable condition, by informant, then he started assaulting accused-appellant and when Smt. Meena Devi tried to save him she was also assaulted by her father Brij Mohan. Subsequently, on the basis of false and concocted story, F.I.R. was lodged, however, in defence no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. 9. PW1 has scribed F.I.R. as well as explaining of witnesses, he supports the F.I.R. version likewise, PW1 and PW2, who also supported the F.I.R. version. According to PW1 after hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Meena Devi when he reached at the house of Brij Mohan he saw that accused-appellant Chhabbu was assaulting Smt. Meena Devi by knife when they tried to enter into the room, he threatened them and when they tried to catch hold the appellant Chhabbu, he inflicted knife injuries upon himself. In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached, the crowd was already there. Likewise PW1 and PW2 have also supported the prosecution version. PW3 Smt. Meena Devi, victim, has also supported F.I.R. version. According to her, accused-appellant was making remarks against her. The complaint was made to her parents. On the date of occurrence i.e. 10.09.1980 at about 08:30 a.m. when she was alone in her house, she was lying on her cot and was looking at the booklet 'chanda mama' (exhibit 1), the accused entered into the room and tried to outrage her modesty and caught hold her breast. She cried and scuffle took place. The accused threatened her to inflict knife injuries. She cried and scuffle took place. The accused threatened her to inflict knife injuries. She stood up and raised alarm, the accused-appellant Chhabbu assaulted injuries upon her with knife. Witnesses including Kishan Lal and Punwasi reached there and saw the incident, she fell down and become unconscious. She was taken over to hospital, where she remained admitted for about nine days in the hospital. 10. In cross-examination, she denied her affair and physical relationship with accused-appellant Chhabbu. She also denied that he was residing as tenant in her house. 11. PW5, father of victim, was not eye witness. When he was on duty he received information then he reached at his house and regarding incident he was informed by PW1 and PW2 namely, Kishan Lal and Punwasi. Subsequently, on his dictation the report was written by PW1 Kishan Lal. 12. Dr. Asha Ram Tripathi (PW4) examined victim Smt. Meena Devi and noted following injuries on person of Smt. Meena Devi:- 1. Incised wound 2c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle on left side forehead 1½c.m. above inner end of left eye brow. 2. Incised wound 3c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle on right side face, 3c.m. Below right eye. 3. Stab wound 2c.m. X 1/2c.m. X depth not probed on front of right side of neck, 4c.m. above right collar bone. K.U.O. 4. Stab wound 4c.m. X 1c.m. X depth not probed on right side chest, 5c.m. above right nipple at 2.0 o'clock position - surgical emphysema present. K.U.O. 5. Incised wound 1c.m. X 1/4c.m. X skin on front of left shoulder. 6. Stab wound 3c.m. X 1c.m. X muscle on left scapular region. K.U.O. 7. Stab wound 4c.m. X 1c.m. X depth not probed on left side back, just below the lower end of left scapula. K.U.O. 8. Incised wound 1c.m. X 1/4c.m. X skin on left side back, 4c.m. Inner to injury no. 7. 9. Incised wound 3c.m. X 1/2c.m. X muscle on outer side of left index finger. 13. He was also examined injuries of appellant Chhabbu on the same day at about 10:00 a.m. and noted following injuries on person of appellant Chhabbu. 1. Two incised wounds 5c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle and 4c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle and 2c.m. apart on right side middle of the neck. 2. 13. He was also examined injuries of appellant Chhabbu on the same day at about 10:00 a.m. and noted following injuries on person of appellant Chhabbu. 1. Two incised wounds 5c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle and 4c.m. X 1/4c.m. X muscle and 2c.m. apart on right side middle of the neck. 2. Multiple incised wounds in an area of 6c.m. X 6c.m. ranging from 1c.m. X 1/2c.m. X skin, 2½c.m. X 2c.m. X muscle on epigastric region. 14. According to PW4, the injuries were grievous in nature and if aid have not been provided, she might have died. In cross-examination he also stated that the injuries might have been self-inflicted, though normally such injuries cannot be self-inflicted. 15. PW7 S.P. Singh, I.O., Sub-inspector, P.S. Cantt. in whose presence F.I.R. was lodged and G.D. entry was made, proved the F.I.R. as well as G.D. entry. After investigation he submitted the charge sheet. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that victim has love affair with accused-appellant and accused-appellant wanted to marry with her even they have established physical relationship then she become pregnant, however, her parents' compels for abortion and miscarriage against her wishes. She was married with another person even after marriage they continued their relationship. He further contended that on the date of incident her father Brij Mohan saw them, while appellant was committing sexual intercourse with her, as such with intention to kill him, he started inflicted injuries and when Smt. Meena Devi tried to save him then she was assaulted by her father Brij Mohan and subsequently false allegation was made. He further submitted that there was contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW2 because if the crowd was already present there when PW2 reached there it is surprising that other persons did not tried to save her. However, on the basis of false and concocted story F.I.R. was lodged and under pressure of her parents and to save her married life, she gave statement in support of the F.I.R. against appellant hence, appellant is entitled to be acquitted. He submitted that alternative argument is that if appellant is found guilty since the matter is of the year 1980, hence, the sentence awarded against him be reduced to already undergone. 17. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of prosecution to disbelieve the prosecution case. He submitted that alternative argument is that if appellant is found guilty since the matter is of the year 1980, hence, the sentence awarded against him be reduced to already undergone. 17. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of prosecution to disbelieve the prosecution case. There is no reason of false implication by the PW1 and PW2, who have no enmity with the appellant. Since PW1 and PW2 as well as victim Smt. Meena Devi have supported the F.I.R. version which is corroborated with the injury reports and there is only minor contradictions hence, the appeal being divided of merit is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the trial Court has already taken lenient view to punish under Section 307 I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced only for three years rigorous imprisonment. 18. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. As far as the informant Brij Mohan, PW5, is concerned, he is not eye witness who is father of victim Smt. Meena Devi. According to F.I.R. version, informant Brij Mohan, his wife and his son were on duty and Smt. Meena Devi was alone in the house on the date of incident i.e. 10.09.1980. After he received information through one Bihari Lal, he reached at his house. PW1 and PW2 informed him regarding the incident, thereafter, the F.I.R. was scribed by PW1 Kishan Lal and the same was lodged at Police Station Cantt. Injured Smt. Meena Devi was taken to the hospital by her mother (wife of Brij Mohan). Bihari Lal was not examined by the prosecution, however Kishan Lal and Punwasi, claiming to be eye witnesses were examined, who saw the incident when accused-appellant Chhabbu was assaulting Smt. Meena Devi by knife. According to their statement, they tried to catch hold appellant Chhabbu, he self-inflicted injuries upon himself. In the cross-examination he stated that when he reached, other persons had also gathered there after hearing the alarm raised by Smt. Meena but there is no reason why the PW1 and PW2 would falsely implicated the accused-appellant Chhabbu. There is no such contradictions, which goes the root of the matter to create doubt in the prosecution story. As far as father and mother of the victim are concerned, they have not witnessed the occurrence and come to know after receiving information. There is no such contradictions, which goes the root of the matter to create doubt in the prosecution story. As far as father and mother of the victim are concerned, they have not witnessed the occurrence and come to know after receiving information. Victim Smt. Meena Devi has also supported the prosecution version and in cross-examination she denied her relationship with the appellant. Apart from that it is admitted case that she was married at different place even though he admitted that he entered into the house and was having physical relationship with her, though it was denied by the victim Smt. Meena Devi. The statement of witnesses PW1 and PW2 and statement of PW3 Smt. Meena Devi are fully corroborated by the injury report. Severe injuries have been caused on person of Smt. Meena Devi. Had her father seen the appellant in objectionable condition with his daughter Smt. Meena Devi, then severe injuries might have been caused to him. In defence no evidence was adduced on behalf of appellant to establish his defence version. According to doctor also the injuries found on person of appellant could have been self-inflicted hence, it is clear that injuries caused to Smt. Meena and appellant Chhabbu fully corroborated the statement of witnesses. Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence the trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant holding him guilty. 19. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment has been awarded under Section 307 I.P.C., sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment has been awarded under Section 452 I.P.C., sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded under Section 354 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment has been awarded under Section 309 I.P.C. The trial Court has already taken lenient view. In view of the fact no interference is required in the judgment and order dated 15.07.1982 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi and the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned.