JUDGMENT AND ORDER : PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J. Heard Mr. G. Pathak, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No.21 (DH)/2010. The appellant was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations. 3. On 06.06.2009, Sri Rajani Kardong had lodged an FIR before police alleging that on the same evening at about 6 P.M., while Mohini Kardong was returning home from Panchayat Office, the present appellant attacked him with a khukuri. Mohini Kardong sustained injuries. On conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 4. The trial court framed the charges under Sections 341, 326, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant. 5. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 7(seven) witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witnesses in his defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court did not find the appellant guilty under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC. However, the court found materials against the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC. Accordingly he was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. 6. I have gone through the prosecution evidence. 7. I shall take up the evidence of PW-1, the victim Mohini Kardong first. He is the victim. He was aged about 43 years old. He supported the prosecution story in his evidence. This witness has stated that he sustained cut injuries on his head and neck. According to this witness, after causing those injuries to him, the appellant ran away. 8. Now, I shall take up the evidence of the 6 th prosecution witness, who was the doctor who examined Mohini Kardong on 06.06.2009. He spoke about his Report. Mohini had sustained cut injuries on his head and neck at different places. 9. The 3rd prosecution witness was Minali Narah. She is the sister-in-law of the appellant. She has stated in her evidence that at the relevant time of occurrence, the victim Mohini Kardong had assaulted the appellant with a split bamboo and in retaliation, the appellant attacked him with another split bamboo. 9. The 3rd prosecution witness was Minali Narah. She is the sister-in-law of the appellant. She has stated in her evidence that at the relevant time of occurrence, the victim Mohini Kardong had assaulted the appellant with a split bamboo and in retaliation, the appellant attacked him with another split bamboo. This witness came to know at a later stage that Mohini Kardong had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. 10. The 4 th prosecution witness Smti. Runumai Narah. She has stated in her evidence that the clash between the appellant and Mohini Kardong was held on the ground that the appellant had given shelter to Dharmakanta, the father of the aforesaid Minali Narah in his house for providing medical treatment. 11. The other prosecution witnesses are the wife of the victim and the complainant. They are not eye witnesses and their evidences are not relevant for this case. 12. In this case, the victim Mohini Kardong has admitted in his evidence that the reason for his clash with the appellant was that the appellant had given shelter to Dharmakanta, the father of Minali Narah in his house for giving medical treatment. 13. On the basis of the evidence of the doctor who examined Mohini Kardong on the day of occurrence, the learned trial court disagreed with the evidences of Minali Narah and Runumai Narah holding that split bamboo could not have caused the cur injuries to Mohini Kardong. The learned trial court found the evidence of Mohini Kardong (the victim) to be trustworthy and reliable. According to trial court, there is no evidence in this case to suggest that the injuries sustained by Mohini Kardong could have caused his death. 14. Therefore, the trial court acquitted the appellant from the offences under Sections 341, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. But, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 16. In this case, the witness Mohini Kardong is the victim. There are no rd discrepancies and contradictions in his evidence. His evidence is supported by the 3 prosecution witness Minali Narah. 17. At this stage, the only question that would arise is as to why Mohini Kardong would depose false evidence against the appellant. 16. In this case, the witness Mohini Kardong is the victim. There are no rd discrepancies and contradictions in his evidence. His evidence is supported by the 3 prosecution witness Minali Narah. 17. At this stage, the only question that would arise is as to why Mohini Kardong would depose false evidence against the appellant. The appellant failed to prove that because of prior enmity, Mohini Kardong was telling lies. 18. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa And Ors. vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1995 SC 254 ), the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that the 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, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 19. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2007) 14 SCC 150 ], the Hon,ble Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between a chance witness and a natural witness. The Court held that both these witnesses have to be relied upon subject to their evidence being trustworthy and admissible in accordance with the law. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, held as under: "28. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived.” 20. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived.” 20. Regarding the evidentiary value of an injured witness in Bhajan Singh Alias Harbhajan Singh and others v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 421 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held --- “The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide: Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ; Kailas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 793 ; Durbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 676 ; and State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324 ).” 21. Under the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a correct finding. The appellant was rightly convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. In respect of the sentence imposed upon the appellant, this Court has decided to have a lenient view for achieving the ends of justice. The occurrence of this case took place on 06.06.2009. In all these years till now, the appellant had undergone rigors of defending himself. 22. In respect of the sentence imposed upon the appellant, this Court has decided to have a lenient view for achieving the ends of justice. The occurrence of this case took place on 06.06.2009. In all these years till now, the appellant had undergone rigors of defending himself. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified. The appellant Dhenuram Narah shall undergo simple imprisonment of 10(ten) days only. He need not pay any fine for the said offence. After receipt of this order, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji shall take immediate steps for execution of the aforesaid sentence in respect of the appellant Dhenuram Narah. 23. The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. Send back the LCR.