JUDGMENT : This appeal, under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2004 passed by Special Judge, Uttarkashi, in Special Sessions Trial No.3 of 2001, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Vinod Singh under Section 323 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that P.W.1 Bachan Das lodged a report at Patwari Chowki Dhauntari, District Uttarkashi stating therein that on 2.3.2001 at about 08:00 am, accused/appellant Vinod Singh entered in the house of Molu Das (P.W.2) and with intention to kill him, caused injuries to him with Stick (lathi) and used caste indicating words against him. It is stated that injured belongs to Scheduled Caste Category whereas the appellant belongs to Swaran Caste. Injured was taken to the hospital where upon seeing his serious condition, he was admitted by the doctors. On the basis of report, Chik F.I.R. was prepared and case crime no.1 of 2001 was registered against the accused/appellant under Sections 325, 452, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC/ST Act). On 16.3.2001, investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.4 Kheemanand Joshi, Sub Inspector, who during the course of investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and injured, prepared the site-plan, obtained the medical report of injured, and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant. 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. On 2.7.2001, Special Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 308 IPC read with sec.3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act against the accused/appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 Bachan Das (complainant), P.W.2 Molu Das (injured), P.W.3 Kundan Singh, Patwari, P.W.4 Kheemanand Joshi, Investigating Officer and P.W.5 Dr. P. Lal, Medical Officer. 5. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 Bachan Das (complainant), P.W.2 Molu Das (injured), P.W.3 Kundan Singh, Patwari, P.W.4 Kheemanand Joshi, Investigating Officer and P.W.5 Dr. P. Lal, Medical Officer. 5. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, in reply to which he pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in the case. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that no charge of offence punishable u/s 308 IPC read with sec. 3(1)(X) of SC/ST is proved against the accused and acquitted the accused under the said sections. However, the trial court found the accused guilty of offence punishable under section 323 IPC, and by judgment and order dated 21.02.2004, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 21.02.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, Uttarkashi, this appeal has been preferred by the accused. 7. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found by Dr. Ajeet Gairola, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Uttarkashi, on 02.03.2011 at 12.00 noon, on the person of Molu Das (P.W.2). The same are being reproduced from injury report (Ex. A7):- “(1) Lacerated wound six 8cm x 1.5cm in deep cutting skin & fascia active, bleeding present, color red. C/o Headache C/o Unconsciousness Injury no.1 is under observation for which patient is being admitted for further treatment and observation. Caused by some blunt object” 8. From the medical evidence on record, it is established on the record that Molu Das (P.W.2) did suffer injury on the date and time of the incident. Now, this Court has to examine whether accused Vinod Singh voluntarily caused hurt on his person or not. 9. P.W.1 Bachan Das is the complainant of the case. In his testimony, he has stated that he and the injured Molu Das (P.W.2) are brothers. On the date of incident, when they were at their house, the accused came and asked Molu to pay balance amount, on which, Molu Das asked to return money after 2-3 days. On this, some hot talks took place between the two and the accused caused hurt on the head of Molu with a Lathi, due to which blood oozed out from his head and he became unconscious. On this, some hot talks took place between the two and the accused caused hurt on the head of Molu with a Lathi, due to which blood oozed out from his head and he became unconscious. He took the injured to the hospital and also lodged the report of the said incident. This witness has proved Ext.A1. 10. P.W.2 Molu Das is the star eyewitness of the case, who had suffered injuries in the incident. This witness has stated that he and the accused Vinod Singh are of the same village. He (P.W.2) had purchased a buffalo from the accused in Rs. 6500/- and had made half payment i.e. Rs. 3500/- and had given assurance to the accused to pay Rs. 3000/- next year. He has stated that on 2.3.2001 at about 8 am, he and P.W.1 Bachan Das were at his house. Accused Vinod Singh came and demanded his money. Accused hurled abuses upon him, which was objected by the injured. On this, accused took a lathi and inflicted a blow of the same on his head, due to which he received head injury and became unconscious. He further stated that he remained hospitalized for 12-13 days for medical treatment. In cross-examination, the witness told that he gave the blood stained clothes to the Patwari. He denied to the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused on account of money. 11. P.W.3 Kundan Singh, Revenue Inspector is a formal witness. He has proved the F.I.R. the Chik F.I.R. (Ext.A2) and G.D. entry (Ext.A3). 12. P.W.4 Kheemanand Joshi is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he had started the investigation on 16.3.2001. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and injured, prepared the site-plan, taken into possession the bloodstained clothes of the injured and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 13. P.W.5 Dr. P. Lal, Medical Officer, District Uttarkashi has stated that he has worked with Dr. Ajeet Gairola and he is well versed with his handwriting and signatures. This witness has proved the medical report Ext.A7 prepared by Dr. Ajeet Gairola. 14. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that P.W.1 Bachan Das and P.W.2 Molu Das (injured) are material and interested witness and there is no independent eyewitness of the incident. Ajeet Gairola and he is well versed with his handwriting and signatures. This witness has proved the medical report Ext.A7 prepared by Dr. Ajeet Gairola. 14. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that P.W.1 Bachan Das and P.W.2 Molu Das (injured) are material and interested witness and there is no independent eyewitness of the incident. It is also argued that there was a motive for false implication of the appellant by the injured for the reason that injured had bought buffalo from the appellant in Rs. 6500/- and had given only Rs. 3500/- and the accused was demanding remaining amount whereas the injured was not willing to repay the same. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. P.W.1 Bachan Das and P.W.2 Molu Das have have clearly stated that on the date of incident they were standing at their house when the accused came. He demanded money from P.W.1 Molu Das whereafter some hot talks taken place between the two and the accused caused hurt on the head of Molu with a Lathi, due to which blood oozed out from his head and he became unconscious. P.W.2 Molu Das has stated that he had remained admitted in hospital for 10-12 days. This part of statement is supported by the medical report (Ext.A7) which indicates that injury no.1, which is lacerated wound size 8 cm x 1.5 cm in deep, was kept under observation and the patient was admitted for further treatment and observation. Although, Medical Officer Dr. Ajeet Gairola who had examined the injured Molu Das and had prepared the medical report could not be examined by the prosecution, but to prove the medical report, P.W.5 Dr. P. Lal was examined as prosecution witness and he has proved the medical report Ext.A7. Thus, the statements of P.W.1 Bachan Das and P.W.2 Molu Das seem to be trustworthy, believable and inspire confidence. 16. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 323 IPC against Vinod Singh. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant Vinod Singh under the aforesaid section. 16. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 323 IPC against Vinod Singh. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant Vinod Singh under the aforesaid section. However, on the point of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident is of the year 2001 and since then 16 years have been elapsed, and now sending the appellant to jail would cause great hardship to him, hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 17. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, on the point of sentence, this Court finds that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about one month during the period of trial. As such, in my view, after more than 16 years of the incident, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant to jail, and the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. 18. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is disposed of affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant under section 323 I.P.C., but the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, without disturbing the sentence of fine. He is on bail, he need not to surrender. Lower court record be sent back.