Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 324/307/34 IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.6.1993, on receiving information from Geeta Nursing Home, Kurukshetra about admission of Satish Kumar, injured (PW-7), Sudarshan Kumar, ASI (PW-9) went to the Nursing Home and moved application (Ex. PH) at 11.15 P.M. about fitness of the patient and since the opinion was that he was unfit to make a statement, he recorded the statement of eyewitness, Avtar Singh (PW-6), to the effect that he was returning to his house after playing cricket in Village Bir Mathana at 7.30 P.M. along with Krishi Lal and injured Satish Kumar. Krishi Lal went to ease himself and Satish Criminal Appeal No.465-DBA of 1996 Kumar was standing at a distance. Accused Rajesh Kumar, Surjit and Tarsem came from the side of the village. Rajesh Kumar inquired from Satish Kumar as to why Satish Kumar had stopped Rajesh from entering the street. Satish replied that Rajesh was indulging in Gundagardi. On this, Surjit Singh exhorted that Satish Kumar be taught a lesson. Rajesh took out a knife from his dub and hit the same on the back of Satish Kumar, which went through and through. Tarsem also exhorted that Satish Kumar be given proper thrashing. Rajesh inflicted another knife blow on the buttocks. Satish Kumar raised alarm Bachao - Bachao (Save - Save). Avtar Singh along with Krishi Lal ran towards him, on which, the accused ran away. Avtar Singh went to the house of Sukhdev Singh, near the place of occurrence, leaving Krishi Lal on the spot. Avtar Singh alongwith Sukhdev Singh came to the place of occurrence on his scooter. Sukhdev Singh made Satish Kumar to sit between himself and Krishi Lal and took him to the hospital. Avtar Singh went to the house of Satish Kumar to inform his family members and thereafter, he also came to the hospital.

3. After making an endorsement on the statement of Avtar Singh, the writing was forwarded to the police station, where case was registered under Section 324/34 IPC at 12.20 A.M. The accused were arrested. During interrogation, Rajesh produced the knife from his pocket, which was taken into possession. On 19.6.1993, statement of the injured Satish Kumar was recorded after he was declared fit to make the statement. According to the opinion of the doctor dated 13.6.1993, the injuries were dangerous to life. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses.

5. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that Rajesh Kumar was falsely implicated on account of party faction. The injured had many enemies and he got injuries elsewhere. Tarsem Kumar, accused stated that he was falsely implicated. Surjit Singh, accused also stated that he was falsely implicated.

6. After considering the evidence, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents. The substance of the reasons given by the trial Court is as under:

(i) Version given by PW-6 Avtar Singh and PW-7 Satish Kumar, was not reliable. In cross-examination, Avtar Singh admitted that house of Rajesh and Satish were in the same street separated by 2-3 houses. Thus, the motive was not proved. PW-6 Avtar Singh was related to Satish Kumar. According to Avtar Singh, there was a trail of blood from the spot to the place where Krishi Lal and Satish Kumar met Avtar Singh. PW-7 Satish Kumar stated that till Sukhdev Singh and Avtar Singh came, he remained at the same place. The I.O. also stated that he took bloodstained earth only from the place where injuries were inflicted;

(ii) Avtar Singh admitted that when he reached the hospital, he found 15-20 persons including father of the injured and other relations, which falsifies his version of his having informed at the house of Satish Kumar. His not accompanying the injured to the hospital, created doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence;

(iii) Krishi Lal and Sukhdev Singh were not examined as witnessed, from which, adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution;

(iv) The injured passed in front of the police station as also the Government Hospital at Pipli and there was no reason to choose only Geeta Nursing Home, even though Krishi Lal and Sukhdev Singh had told that the injured be taken to Dr. Sobti Nurisng Home or Nagpal Nursing Home. This probabilise the suggestion on behalf of the defence that Dr. Madan Goyal was known to the father of the injured, who was an R.M.P. doctor and the object of visiting Geeta Nursing Home was to take false opinion. The knife recovered during investigation was not found to contain any blood. The injured could not identify the knife.

(v) In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that cuts on the garments were larger in size than that of knife, while opinion of the doctor was that cuts on kurta and baniyan could have been caused by knife (Ex. P5). Inference was that two persons simultaneously caused injuries. FIR was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate by ordinary post and reached there on 14.6.1993 at 7.10 A.M. The distance between the injured and the eyewitnesses was 15-20 feet while according to the eyewitnesses, the same was 75 feet.

(vi) The version of Rajesh keeping the knife in his pocket, to be given to the I.O., was not reliable;

(vii) The injuries being on lower parts of the body, there could be no intention to cause death and the opinion that injuries were dangerous to life could not be accepted and the offence could not fall under Sections 307/34 IPC;

7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the view taken by the trial Court in rejecting the evidence of injured eyewitness Satish Kumar, which was corroborated by evidence of PW-6 Avtar Singh, is perverse. Minor contradictions could not be a ground to reject the testimony of injured eyewitness. The case of the prosecution, at least against Rajesh, accused, is fully established.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the view taken by the trial Court.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it may be noticed that evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they were blood relations of the deceased or on account of enmity between the parties. A close relation will be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate the innocent person. Tendency to exaggerate the number of accused has to be safe-guarded by careful examination of evidence in each case by separating the grain from the chaff. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot be applied except as a rule of caution. It may also be noted that normal discrepancies due to errors of observation, error of memory or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be and such discrepancies do not affect the credibility of the witnesses. Different persons may react differently even in same situation and evidence cannot be rejected on the ground that reaction of the witness was different than expected. There can be no set pattern of reaction of any witness. If on broad probabilities, case of the prosecution taken as a whole is found to be truthful, it cannot be rejected either on account of witnesses being related or on account of minor discrepancies. Where eye witnesses account is found to be credible or trustworthy, medical evidence pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be treated as conclusive. These principles are well-settled and have been reiterated in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa : 2003CriLJ41 .

10. It is well settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be always a ground to doubt the case of the prosecution. The villagers cannot be expected to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. They are bound to take some time in going to the police station. Only effect of delay is that the court should be cautious in scrutinising the evidence of interested witnesses with greater care and caution and subject the evidence to closer scrutiny. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Tara Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab : AIR1991SC63 , Para 4.

11. Recovery of weapon which may not be identified is not enough to reject the case of the prosecution. It is well-settled that defect in investigation is not always a ground to reject the prosecutions case unless the accused is prejudiced. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab : 2004CriLJ1807 .

12. When there is reliable direct evidence, proof of motive loses importance. Motive is a psychological phenomena and sometimes it may be difficult to prove the reason for the offence. If an offence is committed even without motive, the offence is punishable. Reference may be made to judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar : AIR1997SC1808 , Para 16 and Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Admn. : 1995CriLJ470 , Para 9.

13. We may now refer to the evidence on record.

14. PW-6 Avtar Singh fully supported the version given by him in his statement (Ex. PA) recorded by PW-9 ASI Sudarshan Kumar. He corroborated the version that Rajesh, accused pulled out a knife from his dub and inflicted blow on the back of the injured Satish Kumar and gave another blow on the hip of Satish Kumar. Satish Kumar was then taken to the hospital by Sukhdev Singh and Krishi Lal, where he also reached after giving information at the house of Satish Kumar. PW-7 Satish Kumar, injured corroborated the version given by PW-6 Avtar Singh about Rajesh Kumar, accused having pulled out a knife from his dub and hitting it on his back and then giving another knife blow on his hip and also his having been taken on a scooter by Sukhdev Singh to the hospital.

15. PW-8 Dr. Madan Goyal deposed that he attended the injured on 10.6.1993 and found following injuries on his person:

1. Penetrating wound left side of chest between 8th and 9th rib, 1.5 cm x .4 cm sized. Its edges and margins were clean cut. Bleeding, profusely and air was also coming out of the wound. It was located at anterior axillary line.

2. Penetraing wound on the back. It was 4 cm lateral to the left of mid lineat the top of left hip bone. Its size was 1.6 cm x .4 cm. The margins and edges were clean cut. On probing it was 6 cm deep. It was fresh bleeding. Probable duration of injuries was less than eight hours.

16. He further deposed that the injuries could be caused by the knife (Ex. P5) and corresponding cuts on the clothes could also be by the said knife. He further deposed that he had sent a writing (Ex. PG) to the police station. In cross-examination, he stated that the patient was brought to the hospital at 9.45 P.M. and he had not given the time of information to the police, but the police arrived at the hospital at 11.00 P.M.

17. PW-9 ASI Sudarshan Kumar deposed that on receiving writing (Ex. PG) from Geeta Nursing Home, he went to the said hospital and moved an application (Ex. PH). The doctor opined vide Ex. PH/1 that the patient was unfit to make the statement and therefore, he recorded the statement of Avtar Singh, eyewitness, present there, vide Ex. PA and made an endorsement for recording an FIR. He collected sealed parcel containing shirt and pants of the injured. At 6.00 A.M., he went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan and lifted bloodstained earth. On 12.6.1993, he arrested Rajesh Kumar, accused. He again sought opinion of the doctor about the nature of injuries, which were described dangerous to life. He arrested other accused. He also recovered knife from the accused Rajesh. He also recorded statement of the injured after he was declared fit to make the statement.

18. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Rajesh Kumar, accused stated that the injured was a mischievous boy and had many enemies and he got these injuries somewhere else and he has falsely implicated him.

19. From the above evidence, it is clear that version given by Avtar Singh (PW-6) was fully corroborated by the version given by him immediately after the occurrence in his statement Ex. PA. The occurrence took place at about 7/7.30 P.M., the injured was brought to the hospital at 9.45 P.M, the statement of Avtar Singh was recorded at 11.55 P.M. and FIR was formally registered at 12.20 A.M. on the next day i.e. 11.6.1993. There was hardly any delay in the patient being taken to the hospital and the FIR being registered. The version given by PW-6 Avtar Singh in his statement Ex. PA as well as in Court, was fully corroborated by the injured Satish Kumar (PW-7). The medical evidence fully corroborated the said version. The injuries found on the person of Satish Kumar were clearly caused by a knife and were serious injuries which could not be self-suffered. ASI Sudarshan Kumar (PW-9) after reaching the hospital on receiving a message, correctly recorded the statement of Avtar Singh. Version given by the PWs could not be rejected on the ground of minor contradictions pointed out by the trial Court. At best, benefit of doubt could be given to the accused Surjit Singh and Tarsem Kumar, but involvement of Rajesh Kumar, accused in causing grievous injuries to the injured Satish Kumar is clearly established. Satish Kumar, injured will be the last person to leave aside the real culprits and falsely implicate Rajesh, accused. There could be no warrant for inference that the injured was taken to the hospital in order to take a false opinion, ignoring the fact that an injured may choose to go to a private hospital instead of going to a Government Hospital, especially if the injured knows the doctor in whom he could have faith and from whom he could expect better treatment. Going to a doctor, who is known, could not be inferred to be for taking a false opinion.

20. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained and case of the prosecution against Rajesh Kumar, accused has been fully established, who is, thus, liable to be convicted under Section 326 IPC, while benefit of doubt could be given to Surjit Singh and Tarsem Kumar, accused.

21. We may now deal with the reasons given by the trial Court point-wise:

Re. Reason No.(i):

Statement of Avtar Singh that house of Rajesh, accused and injured Satish Kumar was separated by 2-3 houses did not falsify the motive alleged. Even if they were in the same street, there could have been a quarrel or threat of obstructing the passage as alleged. In any case, absence of proof of motive was not enough to throw out ocular account, which is reliable. Avtar Singh being related to Satish Kumar, injured, was no ground for not accepting his testimony. Discrepancy of there being trail of blood or blood falling only at one place, cannot be treated as a major discrepancy, which may falsify the prosecution version.

Re. Reason No.(ii):

This reason cannot be sustained for rejecting the testimony of Avtar Singh. It has come on record that in the first instance, arrangement for vehicle was made and after the injured Satish Kumar was removed to the hospital, Avtar Singh went to the house of Satish Kumar to inform his family members. Merely because his family members acquired knowledge prior to his reaching or because Avtar Singh did not accompany Satish Kumar to the hospital, could be no ground to reject his testimony.

Re. Reason No.(iii):

Non-examination of Krishi Lal and Sukhdev Singh could not be a ground to reject the version of the prosecution, when the same was duly proved by the testimony of injured himself, which was corroborated by Avtar Singh, PW. There is no legal requirement to examine any particular number of witnesses. By examining Satish Kumar and Avtar Singh, case of the prosecution has been duly proved. Non-examination of Krishi Lal and Sukhdev Singh did not affect the prosecution version.

Re. Reason No.(iv):

No adverse inference could be drawn from the injured choosing to go to a hospital where doctor was known to him. It could not have been inferred that he chose to go to a hospital only to get false opinion. It is well settled that testimony of injured witnesses has to be given due weight. The injuries on the person of Satish Kumar were never doubted. Plea of the accused himself is that he received injuries, but from somebody else. The injuries on the person of Satish Kumar having been duly proved, there was no reason to reject the version given by him on the ground that he did not go to the Government Hospital or to any other hospital. We may refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Ors. : 1990CriLJ671 , wherein it was emphasized that in emergency, a patient must be attended even by a private doctor without waiting for the police or other formalities. In fact, it was part of professional ethics of any medical professional to provide medical help to save a human life. Observations of the Honble Supreme Court are as under:

8...Every doctor whether at a government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way....

xx xx xx xx xx

14. It could not be forgotten that seeing an injured man in a miserable condition the human instinct of every citizen moves him to rush for help and do all that can be done to save the life. It could not be disputed that in spite of development economical, political and cultural still citizens are human beings and all the more when a man in such a miserable state hanging between life and death reaches the medical practitioner either n a hospital (run or managed by the State) public authority or a private person or a medical professional doing only private practice he is always called upon to rush to help such an injured person and to do all that is within his power to save life. So far as this duty of a medical professional is concerned its uty coupled with human instinct, it needs no decision nor any code of ethics nor any rule of law....

Re. Reason No.(v):

Mere fact that cut on clothes was larger than the size of the knife, could not be treated as a major discrepancy. It could not be presumed that two persons caused injuries. Same weapon may cause injuries of different sizes. There is nothing to doubt the version of the prosecution on account of cut on garments being larger than the size of the knife. Delay in sending of copy of FIR to the Area Magistrate or sending such a report by ordinary post instead of by hand, could also not be taken a ground to reject the ocular testimony, which was otherwise trustworthy. Discrepancy in the distance between the injured and the eyewitnesses could hardly be treated as a major discrepancy.

Re. Reason No.(vi):

Even if recovery of knife from the accused in the manner alleged by I.O. is to be doubted, this did not affect the version of Rajesh Kumar, accused having caused injury by a knife to Satish Kumar, injured. The reason given by the trial Court is not sustainable.

Re. Reason No.(vii):

Opinion of injury being dangerous to life, could at best be a ground for altering the nature of evidence to Section 326 IPC. This reason could have relevance for not accepting the opinion that injury was dangerous to life, but could be no bar to accept the version of the prosecution.

For the above reasons the view taken by the trial Court is clearly perverse and cannot be sustained.

22. In view of above, while dismissing the appeal qua Surjit Singh and Tarsem Kumar, accused, we set-aside the acquittal of Rajesh, accused and convict him under Section 326 IPC. Even though a lenient view cannot be taken, but having regard to all the circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if instead of sending the accused to custody, we require him to pay adequate compensation in default of sentence. We may refer to observations of the Honble Supreme Court in In Hari Krishan and State of Haryana v. Sikhbir Singh : 1989CriLJ116 to the following effect:

10. ... This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.

11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order byimposing sentence in default.

23. Accordingly, we sentence Rajesh, accused to undergo the period of custody already undergone by him, which is said to be about one month. We, however, direct payment of compensation of rupees one lac to the injured Satish Kumar by the accused Rajesh Kumar within three months, in default, Rajesh, accused will undergo further RI for 2 years. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.