JUDGMENT 1. - This petition of accused Jagan Nath and Lalu Ram is directed against the appellate judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated November 22, 1971 by which he has upheld the conviction of accused Jagan Nath for offences under section 307 and 452 I.P.C. and of Lalu Ram for offences under sections 307/34 and 453 I.P.C. For the offences under section 307 and 307/34, accused Jagan Nath and Lalu Ram have, respectively, been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, while they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the other offences under section 452, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case arose on the first information report which was lodged at police station Relmagra on August 15, 1970 at 1.30 p.m. It was reported that on August 14, 1970, 8 p.m. accused Jagan Nath and Lalu Ram entered the house of Balu Ram Accused Jagan Nath was armed with a dagger, and it was alleged that while accused Lalu Ram caught hold of Balu Ram, accused Jagan Nath inflicted several injuries on his person with the dagger. It was further alleged that, in the mean time. Balu Ram's son Jagdish came to his father's rescue and accused Jagan Nath inflicted injuries on his person also with his dagger. The injuries of Balu Ram and Jagdish were examined by Dr. Gopal Krishan of the Kapasin Government dispensary on the same day, i.e. August 14, 1970.It may be mentioned that the report to the police was first lodged at police out-post Gilunda, and was sent from there to police station Relamgra. The police registered the case and made an investigation. Gokul P.W. 8 produced the dagger, which was alleged to have been used by accused Jagan Nath, on August 14, 1970. The police investigated the case and challaned the accused. They have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2 courts below have not taken into account the fact that some injuries were found on the person of accused Jagan Nath & were not explained by the prosecutions. It has therefore been argued that the evidence of the prosecution could not be reliable and should have been rejected. The learned counsel has, in this connection, invited my attention to the statement of Dr. S.S. Bakshi D.W.3, Dr. It has therefore been argued that the evidence of the prosecution could not be reliable and should have been rejected. The learned counsel has, in this connection, invited my attention to the statement of Dr. S.S. Bakshi D.W.3, Dr. S.S. Bakshi has stated that he examined the injuries of accused Jagan Nath on 18.8.1970 & found that he had 3 lacerated wounds & 2 abrasions of a duration of 3 to 4 days. A reading of the judges of the 2 courts below shows that the point was considered in the 2 courts but was rejected for the reasons mentioned in the judgements. I have also examined the argument, with due regard to the version of the accused about the infliction of injuries on the person of accused Jagan Nath. A reading of the statement of accused Jagannath shows that what he has stated in regard to the infliction of the injuries on his person does not have a bearing on the injuries which were inflicted on Balu Ram and his son Jagish. It therefore, appears that the version given by Jagan Nath does not explain the incident for which he and his co-accused have been convicted. Moreover I find that the sequence of the events stated in the version of accused Jagan Nath in the trial court is different from that given by him in the court of the committing Magistrate. Then there is the further fact that the defence version, even as it is, has not been proved by satisfactory evidence. I have therefore, no hesitation in rejecting it as unreliable. 4. It has next been argued that the version of the prosecution regarding the incident should not have been believed because its witnesses have not stated anything to show how three abrasions, two lacerated wounds and one confusion were found on the person of Balu Ram when it was the case of the prosecution that he received injuries at the instance of the accused Jagan Nath with dagger Ex. A-1. I find that the court below rejected the argument for the reason that the abrasions, lacerated wounds and confusion were caused by manhandling, fall and dragging, as stated by Balu Ram P.W. 2 and Salig Ram P.W. 1. I consider that to be a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the argument of the learned counsel. A-1. I find that the court below rejected the argument for the reason that the abrasions, lacerated wounds and confusion were caused by manhandling, fall and dragging, as stated by Balu Ram P.W. 2 and Salig Ram P.W. 1. I consider that to be a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the argument of the learned counsel. It may also be mentioned that the learned counsel has not found it possible, when called upon to do so, to show that the prosecution witnesses were cross examined with regard to the abrasions, lacerated wound and confusion. The argument does not therefore deserve any consideration. 5. It has lastly been argued that the evidence on the record could not be said to make out an offence under section 307 I.P.C. against accused Jagan Nath. It has been pointed out that Dr. Gopal Krishan, who examined the injuries of Balu Ram, has not stated that any injury was dangerous or grevious as he found that they were all simple injuries. 6. A reading of the judgement of the trial Judge shows that in holding the accused guilty of the offence under section 307 and 307/34 Indian Penal Code, he took into consideration the fact that injuries, with the dagger, had been inflicted both on Balu Ram & Jagdish. But an examination of the charge sheets shows that the charge under section 307 and 307 read with section 34 related to the injuries on the person of Balu Ram, and not on the person of his son Jagdish. The trial court therefore, erred in referring to the injuries of Jagdish while considering the nature of the offence. 7. I have examined the evidence in regard to the injuries which were inflicted on the person of Balu Ram. The injury report is Ex. P.1 & it has been proved by Dr. Gopal Krishan. The witness found three incised wounds, three abrasions, two lacerated wounds and one confusion on the person of Balu Ram. It is not the case of the prosecution that the abrasions, lacerations or confusion were evidence of the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. That leaves the three incised wounds for consideration. It has been proved that they were inflicted with a dagger, but they were all simple injuries. It has been mentioned in report Ex. It is not the case of the prosecution that the abrasions, lacerations or confusion were evidence of the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. That leaves the three incised wounds for consideration. It has been proved that they were inflicted with a dagger, but they were all simple injuries. It has been mentioned in report Ex. P.1 that one of the incised wound was a circular wound measuring about 5 inches, but it was only skin deep. It has also been mentioned that the injury could have proved fatal only if the wound had been inflicted on the right or the left side of the neck. The other two incised wounds were skin deep injuries behind the ear and on the top of the left shoulder. Dr. Gopal Krishan has not stated that any of those injuries could prove to be fatal. Moreover, as has been held in Wazira v. emperor, AIR 1940 All 113 which has been followed in a decision of this Court in Brahmanand and 7 another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1970 Raj 220 , the nature of the injury which has actually been inflicted may be of considerable assistance in arriving at the finding whether the accused had the intention causing death. Reference may also be made to Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 where it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it is for the prosecution to establish that the intention of the accused was to cause an injury of any of the three kinds mentioned. In section 300, Indian Penal Code. The state of mind of the accused has the afore to be examined with reference to the injuries already inflicted by him as well as the surrounding circumstances. It is significant that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had any motive for committing the murder of Balu Ram. There is also no evidence to show that the accused had the intention or the knowledge that the injuries inflicted were of the nature referred to in section 300. On the other hand, the evidence of the prosecution goes to show that even though accused Jagan Nath had a dagger with him, he did not strike it recklessly or with force, so that the injuries were only skin deep. On the other hand, the evidence of the prosecution goes to show that even though accused Jagan Nath had a dagger with him, he did not strike it recklessly or with force, so that the injuries were only skin deep. The injuries did not injure any vital organ of the body. It cannot therefore be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused caused injuries to Balu Ram with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause death or with the intention of causing bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that he attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently danger us that must it in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. It follows therefore, that the evidence on record does not justify the conviction of the accused for an offence under sections 307 and 307/34, Indian Penal Code. It has however been proved that accused Jagan Nath committed an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code and that accused Balu Ram committed an offence under section 324/34 Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the accused has not challenged the conviction under section 452, Indian Penal Code. 8. This leaves the question of sentences for consideration. It had been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sentence should be reduced to that already undergone by the accused. It appears to me, however, that such a lenient sentence will not be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year will meet the ends of justice in respect of both the offences. 9. The revision petition is allowed to the extent that the conviction of accused Jagan Nath is altered from section 307, Indian Penal Code to section 324, Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for that offence. His conviction for the offence under section 452, Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of accused Lalu Ram is altered from section 307/34 to that imprisonment for one year for that offence. His conviction for the offence under section 452, Indian Penal Code is maintained, but the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction of accused Lalu Ram is altered from section 307/34 to that imprisonment for one year for that offence. His conviction under section 452 I.P.C. is maintained but the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of both the accused shall run concurrently. They are on bail and shall surrender to serve out the sentences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to carry out the order and report compliance as early as possible. *******