ORDER : This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th February, 2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 55 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 819 of 1987, Barhi P.S. Case No. 72 of 1987, whereby the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each for the offences punishable under Section 452/34 IPC and six months each for the offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC and appellant no. 3 sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 452 IPC and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years u/s 324 IPC and six months u/s 323 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per fardbeyan of the informant, Shanti Devi, PW-2, is that on 29/30.4.1987 at about 12:00 O'clock night at Village-Tiril Tola, Singhania, P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh, all of a sudden the accused-persons after giving kick to the door of the house of the informant entered inside the house and came near the husband of the informant who was sleeping on a cot. It has been alleged that the accused Akbar Mian pressed her husband and the accused Khalil Mian with an intention to kill him started stabbing with knife on his face and was also saying that "sala mukadma larta hai, aaj khatm kar denge". Due to the alleged assault the husband of the informant sustained injuries. When the informant wanted to raise alarm she was also threatened by the accused-persons to be killed and they fled away. Thereafter, the informant raised alarm and at this witnesses Nageshwar Mahto, Babuni Mahto and Pokhan Mahto reached there to whom she stated about the alleged incident. According to the informant the alleged assault took place because there was existing land dispute between them. 3. The matter was reported to the police and the police recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Shanti Devi. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet u/ss. 452, 307, 326, 379 and 323/34 IPC against the present accused-persons and thereafter cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly charges were framed u/ss. 379, 326, 452/34, 307/34 and 323/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses in this case. 452, 307, 326, 379 and 323/34 IPC against the present accused-persons and thereafter cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly charges were framed u/ss. 379, 326, 452/34, 307/34 and 323/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses in this case. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. P.W. 2-Shanti Devi is the informant of this case. She deposed that incident took place fifteen years ago on Wednesday around 12 O'clock at night, she was sleeping with her husband and children. All the three appellants after breaking open the door entered into the house and came near the cot where her husband Basudeo Mahato, PW-1 was sleeping and then the accused Akbar Mian and Raffique Mian pressed him and Khalil Mian assaulted him with knife due to which her husband sustained several injuries in his eyes, nose and hands and he became senseless. There were five to six wounds on her husband. She raised alarm then several persons from the village came there. Thereafter, the accused fled away. She further deposed that there is a land dispute between her husband and appellants and that the accused were asking them to withdraw the case and, therefore, the incident took place. The informant further deposed that she took her husband to the police station in the morning and lodged the case. The injured was first taken to Barhi Hospital then to Hazaribagh Sadar Hospital and then to Ranchi for treatment, where he was treated for one month and during treatment his left eye was totally damaged. In cross-examination, she deposed that she is illiterate and cannot say the plot or khata number of the land. There is sixteen katthas of land with several share holders. In Para-9 she deposed that earlier appellants used to cultivate and when they cultivated the land then appellants filed the case. She further deposed that the door latch was broken and the knife was with Khalil. It was a dark night. Appellants did not take any items except chain. She further deposed that on alarm accused fled away then other persons came. The doors of the neighbourhood were closed by the accused. 5. PW-1 is Basudeo Mahto who is the injured eyewitness. It was a dark night. Appellants did not take any items except chain. She further deposed that on alarm accused fled away then other persons came. The doors of the neighbourhood were closed by the accused. 5. PW-1 is Basudeo Mahto who is the injured eyewitness. He has deposed that he was sleeping then suddenly three accused persons namely Akbar Mian, Raffique Mian and Khalil Mian came there and they entered into the house by breaking open the door and Khalil Mian assaulted him with knife. Other accused persons caught hold of him and Khalil was saying "Hamse case larega." He further deposed that he was alone as his wife was sleeping separately. He became senseless and regained his consciousness after many days. In cross-examination, he deposed that a case regarding land dispute was continuing with the appellants for about two and half years from before. He further deposed that accused persons do not have any house on the said land. Regarding his treatment, he deposed that he regained conscious after one month. He further said that the door was kicked by feet but it could not break. He further deposed that when Khalil assaulted him in his eye then only he recognized the accused persons. He further deposed that no theft of any money took place. 6. P.W.3-Chaita Mahto is the father of the injured Basudeo Mahto. He deposed that when his daughter-in-law raised alarm then he went to the place of occurrence and saw the assault but he could not recognize the assailants. He only saw them fleeing away and the informant informed him that Akbar and two others assaulted Basudeo. In his cross-examination he admitted that accused persons were cultivating the land. In para 5 he admitted that at the time when the dacoity took place a case was subsisting with Akbar Mian and that is why the appellants have been named as accused. 7. P.W. 4 is Babuni Mahto, he deposed that he knew Basudeo Mahto who was assaulted. He had gone to the place of occurrence on alarm from the informant and seen the injuries. However, he had not seen the assailants. He further deposed that Shanti Devi had informed him, about the name of the assailants. He further deposed that he had no information about the theft in the informant's house. He further deposed that there was land dispute between the parties. However, he had not seen the assailants. He further deposed that Shanti Devi had informed him, about the name of the assailants. He further deposed that he had no information about the theft in the informant's house. He further deposed that there was land dispute between the parties. Initially, the land was cultivated by the father of the accused but, now it is cultivated by Basudeo Mahto hence, this dispute. 8. P.W. 5-Dr. Shashi Bhusan Singh is a formal witness and he simply proved the injury report which was in the pen and writing of the Dr. Kamta. Prasad Agrawal marked as Ext.-1. The I.O. was not examined in this case. 9. Mahendra Kumar Pandey is a court witness. He deposed that he recognized the signature of the officer-incharge of the Barhi PS on the FIR but the said FIR was not written in his presence. 10. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellants: Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is admitted that there was some land dispute between the parties. However, he is not denying the occurrence but he is denying the involvement of the appellants. He further submitted that FIR was lodged on 30.4.1987 and it was sent to the Court of C.J.M. on 1.5.1987 and it reached the court on 4.5.1987. He claimed that the FIR is ante-dated and it was lodged much after the occurrence and after planning how to implicate the appellants. FIR was actually lodged on 4.5.1987 and the endorsement of the Magistrate was also on the same day i.e. on 4.5.1987. Learned counsel further submitted that delay has not been adequately explained. Counsel has also argued that the doctor who had prepared the injury report was not examined and it is only the signature of the doctor that has been proved. Since the original doctor could not appear, the appellants could not cross-examine him regarding the injuries sustained by the injured. He submitted that there are only two important witnesses those are PW-1 and PW-2 and both of them are highly interested witnesses. He also questioned however, the credibility of PW-2 that she came on alarm being made by her husband and saw the appellants fleeing away. So PW-2 had also not actually seen the assault which had taken place. He submitted that there are only two important witnesses those are PW-1 and PW-2 and both of them are highly interested witnesses. He also questioned however, the credibility of PW-2 that she came on alarm being made by her husband and saw the appellants fleeing away. So PW-2 had also not actually seen the assault which had taken place. The credibility is however, doubtful because she did not try to save her husband which is naturally expected from a wife and hence, the statement of PW-2 is doubtful. 11. Learned counsel has further stated that PW-3 Chaita Mahto and PW-4 Babuni Mahto are hearsay witnesses and hence, their evidence is not believable and credible. Regarding PW-5 he said that he only proved the signature of the doctor who had examined the injured and prepared the injury report and hence, the injury report is also doubtful as it was not proved by the original doctor. C.W. 1 is a court witness who claimed to recognize the signature of the officer-in-charge in the formal FIR but this witness said that it was not signed in his presence. Regarding Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned counsel submitted that all the questions asked to the appellants were carbon copies of each other and made in a mechanical way which proves that there is no seriousness in the charge. He has pointed out that it is doubtful whether the injured person was actually pressed down by the appellants. He further said that if charges are made, the onus is upon the prosecution for proving the same. Learned counsel for the appellants further cited the following judgments: a. (1972)3 SCC 22 (Dr. S.L. Goswami Vs. State of M.P.) b. (1975)3 SCC 495 (Sri Ram vs. State of U.P.) 12. Learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses are interested and related and since land dispute was already going on it was in the interest of justice that some independent witnesses would have been examined. Though PW-2 deposed that other witnesses also came to the place of occurrence but they were not examined. Prosecution only examined such witnesses who can prove the case against the appellants. Though PW-2 deposed that other witnesses also came to the place of occurrence but they were not examined. Prosecution only examined such witnesses who can prove the case against the appellants. He has further argued that the non-examination of I.O. has prevented the appellants from cross-examination on the point of proving of the place of occurrence as well as the weapons used by the assailants in crime and whether the arms were recovered or seized. 13. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the State: Learned counsel for the State-APP has submitted that as per Section 294 Cr.P.C. the injury report was duly proved and that the genuineness of the report was not disputed during trial and it cannot be disputed at this stage. Further he has said that PW-1 and PW-2 are natural witnesses. They were examined before the court and they fully supported the prosecution case. Further medical evidence supports the ocular evidence. He further submitted that as far as injury in concerned, testimony of injured witness stands on high pedestal and is wholly reliable and credible. He further submitted that offence u/s 324 IPC against appellant no. 3 is proved and the question to be raised is why the injured witness and even the informant will name wrong persons for committing such injury. Whoever has been injured will definitely name the right or correct person for the injuries so the allegation that the appellants are not guilty of such injury is not true. He further submitted that PW-3 came after the assault and he admits the occurrence that he had seen the assailants fleeing away and then his daughter-in-law named the persons who had assaulted the injured. He has also argued that what prejudice has been caused due to non-examination of the I.O. and the doctor who examined the injured has not been pointed out. 14. Regarding non-examination of other charge-sheeted witnesses, counsel for the State has argued that as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 number of witnesses does not matter but there should be quality of witness and in this case there is not one eyewitness but two witnesses who can be considered as reliable eyewitnesses and one of them was an injured witness, and who have every reason to tell the truth. Regarding Section 313 Cr.P.C. he submitted that from the statement it can be seen that all the questions put to the accused were relevant and specific in nature. Appellants have merely said that they have nothing to say and there is only the land dispute, hence, this line of argument cannot be considered. Regarding delay in sending the FIR to the court, learned counsel read out the different dates of occurrence which followed one after other and said that the gap of four days cannot be regarded as delay. FINDINGS: 15. Firstly, there is reliable and trustworthy injured eyewitness PW-1 or Basudeo Mahto. Secondly, there is wife of PW-1 Shanti Devi, PW-2, the informant who was present at the time of the occurrence and, therefore, she is also a reliable and trustworthy eyewitness. Father of the injured eyewitness Basudeo Mahto is Chaite Mahto, PW-3 who reached at the place of occurrence just afterwards when an alarm was heard. Though, he did not himself see the assailants but he saw them fleeing away and then he was informed as to the names of the assailants. It is not conceivable that the injured eyewitness and his wife who was present at the time of occurrence would give a manufactured or cooked up names of the assailants just immediately after the occurrence. Similar is the deposition of PW-4 who also reached at the place of occurrence on alarm and he saw the injuries inflicted on victim Basudeo Mahto. 16. P.W. 5 is Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh who proved the injury report which is Ext.-1 and which was in the handwriting of Dr. Kamta Prasad Agarwal. Being a colleague of Dr. Kamta Prasad Agarwal it is not inconceivable that PW-5, Shashi Bhushan Singh would be unable to recognize the handwriting of Dr. Kamta Prasad Agarwal. The injuries (Ext.-1) which were listed are as follows: (1) 7 incised wounds all around the left eye and on the nose of different size and shape 1" to 2" in length and ½" x 1" in breadth and ½" to bone deep in depth. (2) Swelling on the lower eyelid on right side. (3) Lacerated wound on the right arm ½" x ¼" x ¼". Injury No. 1 was grievous in nature, injury nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature. Injury No.1 was due to sharp cut weapon. Hence, injuries report supports the ocular report. 17. (2) Swelling on the lower eyelid on right side. (3) Lacerated wound on the right arm ½" x ¼" x ¼". Injury No. 1 was grievous in nature, injury nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature. Injury No.1 was due to sharp cut weapon. Hence, injuries report supports the ocular report. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited two judgments in support of his case. Dr. S.L. Goswami (supra), relates to burden of proof. In this case Apex Court held that onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. The second case Sri Ram (supra) deals with identification of the accused. But, in this case in hand there is an injured eyewitness who was assaulted in the house. His wife was also present who is a natural and reliable witness, being present in the house. Both parties were known to each other so question of identification does not arise. Though, prior dispute existed between the parties but inflicting the kind of injuries indicated, and that too around the eye and for which he was hospitalized for a very long period, is indicative that it is not a cooked up case. In an assault of such nature on an injured person, the injured person will only name the person committing the assault. In this case, the prior enmity, rather strengthens the case of motive of the assailants. It has come in evidence that one of the assailants said that "hamse case larega" indicating that appellants were troubled by the litigation. The witnesses came on alarm of the informant and then the informant himself told the names of the assailants, hence, there was no time to manufacture names of appellants. Dr. Agarwal may not have been examined, but his colleague P.W.5 Dr. Singh recognized the handwriting of Dr. Agarwal on Ext.-1 or the injury report. On the point of identification the assailants were known to them from before, and witnesses have even identified them in Court. So the two cases cited by the appellants counsel is not of much use to the defence of the appellants. 18. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid arguments, records of the case and reasonings, this court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2003, passed in S.T. No. 55 of 1994 by the learned court below. So the two cases cited by the appellants counsel is not of much use to the defence of the appellants. 18. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid arguments, records of the case and reasonings, this court upholds the judgment of conviction dated 5.2.2003, passed in S.T. No. 55 of 1994 by the learned court below. However, bearing in mind that the occurrence is of the year 1987 and almost thirty years have passed and the appellants are also old now, who were first offenders having undergone the uncertainties and hardships of trial, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone, if any. Since Basudeo Mahto, PW-1 was injured, compensation, of Rs. 5,000/- each be paid by each appellant to the injured for the ends of justice and in default of payment of compensation they are further directed to undergo S.I. for one month. The appellants are on bail, they will be discharged from their liabilities of bail bonds, after payment of compensation to the injured, or his successor. The convicting or successor court is accordingly directed to take appropriate steps after receipt of this judgment. 19. With the above modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.