JUDGMENT : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-5-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in S.T. No. 187/98 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 307 and 333 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation on each count. 2. As per prosecution case, on 3-6-1998 complainant Manilal, Head Constable, along with fellow constables had gone to the vicinity where the appellant was residing, in connection with enquiry in Crime No. 150/98 in relation to offence under Section 354 of IPC, there he asked the accused/appellant to accompany him to police station, on which the appellant allegedly refused to go with him and caused injury on his thigh by a Gupti (sword-cane). Immediately after the incident at 11.50 p.m., FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Manilal, based on which offence under Sections 186, 189, 332, 307, 34 of IPC was registered against the appellant showing his name as Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper. The injured was got medically examined on 3-6-1998 by P.W.6 Y.K. Tiwari vide Ex.P/7 who noticed one incised wound of serious nature over right thigh. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant and two acquitted accused persons namely Uday alias Rajendra Sweeper and Anil S/o Chandrashekhar Ragde under Sections 186, 189, 332, 307, 34 of IPC. However, while framing charge the trial Court framed charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 333 & 307 of IPC and against two accused persons under Sections 333/109 & 307/109 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined one witness. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting accused Uday alias Rajendra Sweeper and Anil S/o Chandrashekhar Ragde of all the charges levelled against them, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting accused Uday alias Rajendra Sweeper and Anil S/o Chandrashekhar Ragde of all the charges levelled against them, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under : (i) that the FIR was lodged against one Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper whereas name of the appellant is Narendra alias Raj S/o Ramesh Sweeper and as such, it appears that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. (ii) that once on the same set of evidence, co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court, giving similar treatment to the appellant he also ought to have been acquitted of the charges. (iii) that the statement of P.W.1 complainant has not been supported by P.W.2 and therefore, veracity of the statement of P.W.1 becomes doubtful. (iv) even otherwise, from perusal of the entire statement of P.W.1 he does not appear to be a trustworthy witness. (v) that considering the fact that the injury has been caused from backside, the possibility of assault being made on the complainant by some other person cannot be ruled out. (vi) even if the prosecution case is taken as it is, offences under Sections 307 and 333 of IPC are not made out against the appellant and at best, he can be held guilty under Sections 324 and 332 of IPC and further, considering the fact that he has already remained in jail for about 105 days, the incident had taken place in the year 1998, at that time the appellant was 22 years of age, is a small employee of Municipal Corporation, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. On the point of sentence, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1992 SC 1150 . 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel as under : (i) that as per medical report given by P.W.6, the injury sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel as under : (i) that as per medical report given by P.W.6, the injury sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. (ii) that immediately after the incident the report was lodged by the injured victim and considering the nature of injuries, it can be inferred that the victim must be under tremendous pain and agony and therefore, in that condition while lodging the FIR he would have mentioned the name of the as sailant incorrectly, but that alone does not extend any benefit to the appellant. Furthermore, no such relevant question was put to the investigating officer and none of the witnesses has stated that there was any Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper in the vicinity where the appellant was residing. (iii) that if the Court finally comes to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to be convicted under Sections 332 and 324 of IPC. considering the presumptuously dare act anil brutality of the accused/appellant where he assaulted the Head Constable who had gone there for investigation in connection with some other case, his sentence may not be reduced to the period already undergone by him, rather he should be awarded sentence commensurate with his dare-devil act. If such a person is extended liberal consideration, it will not only lower down the morale of the police authorities but would also encourage such people and would send a wrong message to the society. 7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. P.W. 1 Manilal, injured Head Constable, while supporting the prosecution case has stated that on the date of incident he along with Constable Nandkumar had gone to Station Para in connection with investigation of Crime No. 150/98 in relation to offence under Section 354 of IPC and there he met all the three accused persons, he asked them their names and then asked the accused/appellant to accompany him to police station, on which the accused/appellant asked him as to why he would go to police station, he has not committed any crime. Thereafter, the accused/appellant took out a gupti, there was a scuffle between the two and the accused/ appellant tried to assault with gupti on his stomach, which hit his right thigh. Thereafter, the accused/appellant took out a gupti, there was a scuffle between the two and the accused/ appellant tried to assault with gupti on his stomach, which hit his right thigh. At that time, the other accused persons Uday and Anil were shouting to kill him (P.W.1). He has further stated that after sustaining injury, he rushed to a nearby place, tied the bandage round the wounded thigh and then lodged the report at the police station. In cross-examination but for minor contradiction he remained very firm and has clarified that while lodging the report he was perplexed and was unable to speak properly, therefore, name of the appellant has been mentioned by him as Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper. However, no further question was put to this witness by the defence thereafter. 9. P.W. 2 Nandkumar though in examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case, however, in cross-examination he has stated that he could not see as to how P.W. 1 sustained injuries. P.W. 3 Fatte Khan, an eyewitness to the incident, though could not identify the assailant but has proved presence of all the three accused persons at the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 Abdul Latif and P.W. 5 Rajesh Soni, witnesses to memorandum (Ex.P/5) of the appellant and seizure of gupti (Ex. P/6), have though turned hostile but admitted their signature on these documents. P.W. 6 Y. K. Tiwari, did MEC of the victim Manilal (P.W. 1) vide Ex.P/7 and noticed one incised wound of size 1" x ½” ¾ deep over right thigh of post lateral aspect. In his opinion, the said in jury was caused by sharp edged weapon and was grievous in nature. On being produced before him, he had also examined the fullpant and shirt of the victim vide Ex.P/8 and noticed that right side pocket of the pant was cut, the pant was stained with blood and there were blood like stains on the shirt also. He had advised for chemical examination of those stains. P.W.7 Shoukat Ali, Sub Inspector, assisted in the investigation. P.W. 8 Awadesh Prasad, Constable, made seizure of uniform of the victim vide Ex.P/2. P.W. 9 Chhedilal, sweeper, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.10 GR Dharamgude, investigating officer, registered the FIR and duly supported the prosecution case. He had advised for chemical examination of those stains. P.W.7 Shoukat Ali, Sub Inspector, assisted in the investigation. P.W. 8 Awadesh Prasad, Constable, made seizure of uniform of the victim vide Ex.P/2. P.W. 9 Chhedilal, sweeper, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.10 GR Dharamgude, investigating officer, registered the FIR and duly supported the prosecution case. No question was put to this witness regarding identity of the accused/ appellant or regarding lodging of FIR by the victim in the name of Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper. P.W.11 Dwarika Prasad, Constable, has proved Rojnamchasanha Ex.P/16 & P/17, which shows that the injured victim had gone for investigation in relation to some offence and thereafter returned in injured condition. 10. D.W. 1 Gajadhar Shrivas has stated that at the time of incident, the accused/appellant was having his hair cut in his salon. 11. Based on the memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex.P/5), seizure of gupti was made vide Ex.P/6 and as per FSL report (Ex.P/9), blood was found on the said weapon and clothes of the injured. Further, serological report (Ex.P/10) confirms presence of human blood on uniform of the injured. 12. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 3-6-1998 when the complainant/injured had gone to the vicinity of the accused/appellant to investigate into Crime No. 150/98 in relation to offence under Section 354 of IPC, he met all the three accused persons there. When the complainant asked the accused/appellant to accompany him to police station, he started quarreling with him and then opened assault by gupti which struck his right thigh. Testimony of injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate the innocent. Thus deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. Though while lodging the FIR, the injured has disclosed the name of one of the assailants as Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper, but in the Court has clarified this discrepancy stating that as at the relevant time he was perplexed and was not able to speak properly, such mistake occurred. Though while lodging the FIR, the injured has disclosed the name of one of the assailants as Narendra Sweeper alias Ramesh Sweeper, but in the Court has clarified this discrepancy stating that as at the relevant time he was perplexed and was not able to speak properly, such mistake occurred. Even otherwise, this discrepancy is not so fatal to the prosecution case based on which the entire testimony of the injured can be discarded because name of the appellant is Narendra, son of Ramesh, who was working as sweeper. As such, the appellant is not entitled to derive any benefit out of this discrepancy. The defence has not been able to bring anything on record to show false implication of the accused/appellant by the injured on account of animosity, enmity etc. This apart, version of the injured finds due corroboration from the medical evidence, according to which corresponding injury as noticed by the treating doctor on his right thigh with a sharp edged weapon. The defence taken by the accused/appellant that at the time of incident he was having his hair cut in the salon of D.W.1 Gajadhar Shrivas stands falsified from the evidence of RW.2 Nandkumar and P.W.3 Fatte Khan, who have categorically I stated about presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, complicity of the accused/appellant in commission of the offence stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Now the next question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the act of the accused/appellant makes him liable to be convicted under Sections 333 and 307 of IPC? 14. Though as per Ex. P/7 the doctor has opined the injury sustained by the victim to be grievous in nature, but considering the nature and extent of injury, the part of the body where is was caused, the same cannot be said to be grievous as it does not fall within any of the kinds of hurt defined under Section 320 of IPC relating to grievous hurt. Likewise, in view of medical report of the victim, the manner in which the assault was made and the evidence of the victim, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant assaulted the victim in an attempt to commit his murder. Likewise, in view of medical report of the victim, the manner in which the assault was made and the evidence of the victim, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant assaulted the victim in an attempt to commit his murder. This being the position, in my considered opinion, conviction of the appellant under Sections 333 and 307 of IPC deserves to be converted into Section 332 and 324 of IPC respectively. 15. As regards the quantum of sentence, while awarding sentence the Court is required to borne in mind the gravity of the offence, the mitigating factors and circumstances like parties buying peace, settling the disputes and getting reconciled, victim subsequently becoming part of the family, victim showing interest in getting monetarily compensated etc., motive for commission of crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the prescribed punishment and the social abhorrence of the crime. Imposition of appropriate sentence is the manner in which the Courts respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. In the case in hand, considering the manner in which the appellant assaulted the victim, a police constable, with a lethal weapon speaks volumes of his dare-devil act and calls for no leniency, rather it requires punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence to prevent recurrence of such incidents so that law and order situation could be maintained peacefully. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate punishment. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant for the pin pose of sentence is of no help to him because (he same is entirely distinguishable on facts. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that sentence of two years’ RI on each count under Sections 332 and 324 of IPC and grant of suitable compensation to the victim under Section 357(3) of Cr. P.C. would meet the ends of justice. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. P.C. would meet the ends of justice. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the appellant of the charges under Sections 333 and 307 of IPC, he is held guilty under Section 332 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years on each count. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. In addition to this, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr. P.C. to injured Manilal (P.W.1) and in default thereof, shall suffer additional SI for four months. The judgment impugned stands modified to the above extent. The accused/appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stands cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Appeal partly allowed.