JUDGMENT : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1. By the present appeal, the appellants are questioning the correctness of their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia dated 31.07.2015 in Sessions Trial No. 54/2012 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and directed that they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. I have heard Mr. C.B. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms T. Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the State. With their able assistance, I have perused the record and proceedings as well as the notes of evidence. 3. The date of incident is 30.08.2011. The criminal law was set into motion by Chandrakala Kanoje (PW-1) who is the wife of injured. She lodged a report on 01.09.2011 at Police Station, Amgaon. On the basis of the said, CR No. 85/2011 was registered against the present appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The FIR states that on 30.08.2011 at 8 O'clock in the morning there was a quarrel with appellant no. 3Suryakant in respect of the illicit liquor. The said quarrel was pacified by one Deshmukh Nagbhide. Thereafter, she and her husband the injured Subhash Kanoje (PW-3) returned to their house. The FIR further proceeds to state that at 4 O' clock, appellant no. 3-Suryakant again came to their house and started abusing. The said fact was again reported by the injured Subhash to the President of the Dispute Resolution Committee. On that, the said President informed her husband that he will give an understanding to him. Thereafter the injured returned to his house. At 7 O'clock in the evening, appellant no. 3-Suryakant again came in front of her house and started abusing Subhash (PW-3). Therefore, the first informant and the injured came out of their house to pacify him. At that time, the appellants Suryakant and Nanaji caught hold of Subhash appellant no. 1-Chandrakant gave knife blow to him. After giving the knife blows, the appellants ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the first informant brought towel from her house and it was tied on his stomach. The injured was unconscious. At that time, the appellants Suryakant and Nanaji caught hold of Subhash appellant no. 1-Chandrakant gave knife blow to him. After giving the knife blows, the appellants ran away from the spot. Thereafter, the first informant brought towel from her house and it was tied on his stomach. The injured was unconscious. He was taken to the Government hospital at Amgaon for treatment. After giving first aid, he was referred to KTS Hospital, Gondia. Since Subhash was having grave injuries, he was admitted at Bajaj Hospital, Gondia. 4. After registration of the crime, the investigation was taken up by Vasant Sapre (PW-9) who, at the relevant time was Police Sub-Inspector at Police Station, Amgaon. During the course of the investigation, he made visit to the spot of incident and spot panchanama was drawn by him in presence of panchas. The spot was shown by Chandrakala (PW-1). The Panchanama of the spot of occurrence is at Exh.52. In the night of the same day, the accused/appellants were arrested. During the course of interrogation, appellant no. 1 made his disclosure statement in presence of pancha witness Baliram (PW-4) and that led to the recovery of scissors and clothes which were on his person at the time of incident. Similarly, the clothes were also seized at the behest of original accused no. 2-Nanaji on his memorandum statement recorded in presence of Subodh (PW-5). He has also recorded statements of witnesses and he also seized clothes of the injured under seizure memo Exh.37. Muddemal articles were sent to the chemical analyzer for analysis. After completing the other usual investigations, final report was presented in the court of learned Magistrate to pass the order of committal and thereafter the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 54/2012. The charge was framed against the accused persons under Exh.11 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed for their trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and also relied on various documents which were proved during the course of trial. After appreciation of the prosecution case, the learned Judge delivered the impugned judgment and imposed the sentence upon the appellants after recording their conviction. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. After appreciation of the prosecution case, the learned Judge delivered the impugned judgment and imposed the sentence upon the appellants after recording their conviction. Hence, this appeal. 6. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not trustworthy. He further submitted that there are omissions in the testimony of Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3). He also submitted that they are the interested witnesses and therefore their evidence needs to be discarded. He also submitted that Navtu Bhimte (PW-2) the eye witness has failed to support the prosecution case and therefore there is no independent version to corroborate the interested version. He also submitted that in the FIR, the first informant has stated that her husband was attacked by means of knife whereas Subhash the injured stated in his evidence that he was attacked by means of Gupti whereas the weapon that is produced before the Court is scissors. Therefore, there is variance as to which was the weapon that was used in the assault and therefore the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. He also pointed out that the weapon identification panchanamas is a farce inasmuch as the same is recorded on 07.09.2011. To fortify his point, he has invited my attention to the cross-examination of the injured in which he has stated that after 15 days from his discharge, he was called at police station and there the identification took place. He further invited my attention to the evidence of Dr. Prashant Meshram (PW-8) to point out that from his evidence, it is clear that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 09.09.2011. Therefore, the document, which is coming on record in respect of the identification panchanama which is drawn on 07.09.2010 is a farcical one. Lastly, he submitted that the appellants have exercised their right of private defence and therefore conviction under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be set aside. 7. Per contra, Ms Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the discrepancy as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and much importance cannot be attached to the same. 7. Per contra, Ms Udeshi, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the discrepancy as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and much importance cannot be attached to the same. She also submitted that the omissions which are sought to be proved are minor in nature and they do not touch the core of the prosecution case. She also submitted that the Chemical Analyzer's report Exh.58 clinchingly shows the finger of guilt towards the appellants inasmuch as the clothes of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are stained with human blood having blood group “O” which is established as blood group of the injured. So also, the scissors, the weapon was also having blood of group “O.” Therefore, she submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 8. There is no dispute that after the incident of attack, the injured was taken to the hospital. Dr. Prashant Meshram (PW-8) was attached with Central Hospital, Gondia as Consultant Surgeon. His evidence shows that on 30.08.2011, Subhash was admitted to the hospital for treatment and he was under the treatment of Dr. Prashant Meshram. From his evidence, it is clear that on 01.09.2011, the Investigating Officer gave a requisition Exh.44 to give his opinion about the health of the injured since the police authorities were intending to record the statement of the injured. Exh.45 is proved by Dr. Meshram to certify that the injured is in a condition to speak. As per his evidence, Subhash was admitted to the hospital for treatment of penetrating injury to his chest and abdomen. On being examined, Dr. Meshram noticed the following external injuries. “(i) CLW over left intraclavicular region admeasuring 4 x 2 x 1 cm. (ii) CLW over left sixth inter coastal space admeasuring 4 x 2 x 1 cm. (iii) CLW over left lumber region admeasuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm. (iv) CLW over epigastrium admeasuring 2 x 1 x 1 cm.” He also noticed the following internal injuries: “(i) Gastric perforation, admeasuring 2 x 2 cm. on posterior wall. (ii) Multiple jejunal perforation. (iii) Left thorax penetrating injury with injury to left lung.” In unequivocal terms. Dr. Meshram testifies before the Court that all the injuries suffered by Subhash were grievous in nature and were caused by sharp penetrating object. on posterior wall. (ii) Multiple jejunal perforation. (iii) Left thorax penetrating injury with injury to left lung.” In unequivocal terms. Dr. Meshram testifies before the Court that all the injuries suffered by Subhash were grievous in nature and were caused by sharp penetrating object. According to the Doctor, these injuries were sufficient to cause death of the patient. He proved the injury report Exh.46. The cross-examination of this doctor, insofar as the injuries are concerned, shows that the evidence is not shaken at all and defence was unable to show anything by which it could be said that the nature of injuries were not grievous. Looking to Exh.46, the injury report as well as the evidence of Dr. Meshram, there cannot be any doubt that Subhash the injured suffered grievous injuries on his person. The appellants are before this court since according to them the prosecution was not able to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellants, there is an element of doubt in the prosecution case and therefore its benefit should be extended to them. 9. In order to show the culpability of the appellants in the crime, the prosecution has examined three witnesses. Chandrakala (PW-1), Navtu (PW-2) and Subhash (PW-3). Subhash (PW-3) testifies before the Court the reason for attack on him by the appellants. It is also corroborated by Chandrakala (PW-1) and it is also referred in the FIR. From the evidence of these two prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the appellants used to do the illegal business of liquor in their house causing nuisance to the family of the injured and therefore there used to be quarrels in between the two families. The matter was reported to the President of the Dispute Resolution Committee who tried to pacify the same. Even on the day of the incident in the morning such thing happened and ultimately in the early hours of the night, Subhash was assaulted. In my view that proves the case of the prosecution insofar as the motive part is concerned. There was a definite reason for the appellants to make an assault due to their quarrel with the family of the injured which was reported by the injured to the Dispute Resolution Committee. 10. Insofar as the actual assault on the injured and thereafter appellant no. There was a definite reason for the appellants to make an assault due to their quarrel with the family of the injured which was reported by the injured to the Dispute Resolution Committee. 10. Insofar as the actual assault on the injured and thereafter appellant no. 1 giving blows of the weapon resulting into grievous injury, the role which is attributed to the appellants by injured Subhash (PW-3) is also corroborated by Chandrakala (PW-1). The omissions which are tried to be pointed out to this Court are not in respect of the role attributed to any of the appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution could not fix the spot of of incident. The FIR as well as the evidence of Subhash show that on the road he was assaulted. Exh.52 is the spot panchanama. The said spot panchanama is having sketch of the place of the incident. It clearly shows that the spot whereat Subhash was attacked is the middle of the road and the said road is surrounded on both sides by the house. In that view of the matter, the submission on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution failed to prove the place of incident as to whether it is in front of the house of Navtu (PW-2) or in front of the house of the complainant himself, in my view, cannot be of much importance for the reason that Subhash is a rickshaw puller and Chandrakala is a labourer. That shows that these two persons are rustic and it is quite possible that there may be some discrepancy in giving exact place of the incident. If the Courts give much importance to such a minor discrepancy then in my view it will result in to miscarriage of justice. It is to be noted that justice not only have to be done to the accused at the same time victim is also entitled to get justice. 11. Navtu (PW-2) is an independent witness. Though he has also turned hostile, in my view, his entire testimony cannot be said to be washed away. It is to be noted that justice not only have to be done to the accused at the same time victim is also entitled to get justice. 11. Navtu (PW-2) is an independent witness. Though he has also turned hostile, in my view, his entire testimony cannot be said to be washed away. It is trite law that even the testimony of such a hostile witness can be looked into to the extent it corroborates the prosecution case and in fact the said aspect is no res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement in the matter of Khajju alias Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 . Navtu (PW-2) corroborates Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3) that their daughter was in his house and Subhash came to his house to call his daughter that he was in front of his house. There the appellant-Chandrakant came running, made him fall and thereafter assaulted him with a weapon and ran away. Thus, even from the testimony of Navtu (PW-2) the role attributed against the appellants is corroborated. This prosecution witness Navtu (PW-2) is not attributing any overt act to the appellant nos. 2 and 3. Similarly because he is not attributing any role to the appellant nos. 2 and 3, that does not give any reason for the appellants, especially the appellant no. 1, that the entire case of the prosecution is untrustworthy, especially when even Navtu corroborates the overt act done by appellant no. 1-Chandrakant. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the reported case in Mr. Mohan Girdhar Singh vs. The State of Maharashtra through Sr. Inspector of Police, 2007 Cri. L.J. 3855 to point out that in view of inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3), benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellants. The facts in the said case are altogether different. Further, the discrepancies which are tried to be pointed out to this Court are very minor in nature and as observed earlier that much importance cannot be attached to the said minor discrepancies. 13. The other submission of the learned counsel that the identification panchanama is a farce, in my view, is having some substance. The said panchanama is recorded on 07.09.2011. However, from the evidence of Dr. 13. The other submission of the learned counsel that the identification panchanama is a farce, in my view, is having some substance. The said panchanama is recorded on 07.09.2011. However, from the evidence of Dr. Meshram (PW-8), it is clear that the patient was an indoor patient till 09.09.2011. However, only because of that lacuna which in my view is on the part of the Investigating Officer, justice cannot be denied to the victim especially when Article 4the scissors was shown to Subhash when he was in the witness box. He identified the said weapon. Identification of the weapon by him during the trial before the Court is always on high pedestrian than the identification made by him during the course of investigation before the Investigating Officer. 14. The other submission of the learned counsel is that the prosecution case shows three different types of weapons. In the FIR, the first informant-Chandrakala states that her husband was attacked by means of knife whereas during the course of evidence Subhash shows that he was assaulted by a weapon like Gupti whereas the weapon which was recovered at the behest of the appellant no. 1 and which according to the prosecution is the weapon for assault is scissors. Therefore the learned counsel submits that that particular benefit should also required to be given in favour of the appellants. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, at the first blush, appears to be very attractive and impressive. However, on closer scrutiny of the entire record, I reject his submission. The time of incident is in the early hours of night. The time of incident is after the sunset. Further, though the spot panchanama shows that there is electric pole, there is nothing on record that at the time of assault the street light was turned on. Further, it is natural on the part of the injured at the time of receiving the blows on his person to pay more attention to the assailant rather than the weapon which was in his hand. He specifically attributes the role to each of the appellants. His evidence clearly shows that there is no exaggeration. Further, when this weapon was sent for its examination to Dr. Ravi Shende (PW-7) by the Investigating Officer, he noticed that the weapon-scissors admeasures 22.5 cm along with handle. Its blade is of 15.5 inch. He specifically attributes the role to each of the appellants. His evidence clearly shows that there is no exaggeration. Further, when this weapon was sent for its examination to Dr. Ravi Shende (PW-7) by the Investigating Officer, he noticed that the weapon-scissors admeasures 22.5 cm along with handle. Its blade is of 15.5 inch. The diagram of the said weapon is available on record at Exh.40. The query report shows that the scissors was not a small scissors. It is a big one. Therefore, it is quite possible for the injured and Chandrakala (PW-1), the rustic witnesses, not to give the correct name of the weapon. However, we cannot forget from the diagram that it shows that the scissors is having a pointed opening. Dr. Meshram in his evidence has noticed that the injuries noticed by him during the medical examination of the injured could be caused due to the sharp penetrating object. From the diagram, it is clear that the weapon is a penetrating object. Further, all the muddemal property was sent to the chemical analyzer and the chemical analyzer's report is available on record at Exh.58. Exh.59 is the CA report which determines the blood group of the injured Subhash as blood group “O.” Exh.58, CA report shows that the human blood of blood group “O” was noticed on the weapon-scissors, shirt of the appellant no. 1-Chandrakant and shirt of appellant no. 2-Nanaji. For these incriminating circumstances, there is no explanation from the appellants as to how the stains of blood having group “O” appear on their clothes. A vague statement was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the fact that the blood group of the appellants are not determined and therefore it is quite possible that their blood group may be “O.” I am not impressed with this submission; for the reason that for the first time this particular submission is made at the appellate stage. There is no foundation for the same during the course of the trial. Further, an opportunity was also there for them to put forth their explanation when this incriminating circumstance was put to them in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, no explanation was offered. On the contrary, appellant no. There is no foundation for the same during the course of the trial. Further, an opportunity was also there for them to put forth their explanation when this incriminating circumstance was put to them in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, no explanation was offered. On the contrary, appellant no. 1 has given his written statement Exh.65 in which it was his defence, which is consonance with the line of cross-examination of injured Subhash, that there was a scuffle in between him and Subhash and in that scuffle, by the weapon which was in the hands of Subhash injured, he got himself injured. 16. Once it is noticed that the evidence of the injured Subhash (PW-3) is free from exaggerations and the minute scrutiny of his evidence completely rules out the possibility of false implication so also it is also corroborated by Chandrakala (PW-1) and Navtu (PW-2) to the extent of giving blows by the weapon by Chandrakant, I see no escape for Chandrakant from his conviction under Section 307 of the IPC. 17. Insofar as appellant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. To them, a specific role is attributed by the injured and his wife that they caught hold of the injured and due to which the injured was unable to move and that facilitated the appellant no. 1Chandrakant to give blow of the weapon which was in his hand. Therefore, in my view, the conviction recorded against them under Section 34 of the IPC is justified. In fact, the presence of appellant no. 2Nanaji is also confirmed in view of the CA report where blood of group “O” was noticed on his clothes. Though the CA report absolves appellant no. 3-Suryakant that by itself is not sufficient to acquit him. The CA report is always in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence to substantiate the evidence which has come on the record. The evidence of Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3) are consistent that appellant no. 3-Suryakant caught hold of Subhash and thereafter Subhash was attacked by Chandrakant. 18. Nanaji is father of Chandrakant and Suryakant. Thus, all the appellants are from the same family. They are in illegal liquor business and that activity was obstructed. The evidence of Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3) are consistent that appellant no. 3-Suryakant caught hold of Subhash and thereafter Subhash was attacked by Chandrakant. 18. Nanaji is father of Chandrakant and Suryakant. Thus, all the appellants are from the same family. They are in illegal liquor business and that activity was obstructed. Quarrels were picked up with the family of the injured that required the injured to lodge a complaint with the President of the Dispute Resolution Committee in the morning and in the noon session of the day. The matter was reported to the Committee and in the evening there occurred the actual incident of assault. That shows that all the appellants were showing common intention and therefore they are rightly convicted by the court below. 19. Though the learned counsel has pointed out the reported decision in the case of Lalchand Cheddilal Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (5) Bom. CR 585, to keep aside the CA report on the ground that at the time of seizure of the weapon and clothes there is no mention that those were sealed, there is nothing on record to show that there was any reason on the part of the Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused persons. Be that as it may. Once, the substantive evidence available on record through Chandrakala (PW-1) and Subhash (PW-3) about the actual assault by the appellants, much importance cannot be attached to the procedural aspect of sealing especially when the CA report shows that all the muddemal articles were received in the CA's office in the sealed condition. Therefore, I reject the said contention also. 20. The re-appreciation of the entire prosecution case shows involvement of the appellants and they are responsible for the grievous injuries suffered by Subhash (PW-3) and therefore they are rightly convicted by the court below. In the result, the appeal fails. The same is therefore dismissed.