JUDGMENT 1. The appellant Pooran was convicted under section 307 IPC and under section 324 IPC, while appellants Ramji Lal and Bhagirath were convicted under sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC. Each of the appellants was sentenced respectively to rigorous imprisonment for five years and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the said two offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar by which the appellants were so convicted and sentenced, is dated 25-11-75 against which this appeal has been preferred. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25-10-74, at about 5. p. m. Tejaram and his father Jodha Ram were beaten by Bhagirath accused and party. Kishore Kumar son of Ravta Ram Jat arranged a cart and carried the injured to the hospital. When he returned from the hospital at 10 p. m. to his house, he found.accused Pooran and Bhagirath standing outside his house abusing his family members. They threatened Kishore Kumar that since he and the members of his family have helped Teja Ram and Jodha Ram, they will also be dealt with. Thereupon, Kishore Kumar and party went to the police station, Sri Karanpur to give information of this incident. Bhagirath also went there. When Kishore Kumar and party were returning, Bhagirath is alleged to have followed them. It was then 11-30 p. m. when they came near the shop of Dr. Deshmitra, Ramjilal and Pooran came out. Bhagirath and Ramjilal caught the hands of Kishore Kumar and Pooran inflicted repeated knife blows in the chest and back of Kishore Kumar. Hearing the cries of Kishore Kumar, Bogu Ram, who was going ahead of him, came to his rescue, Pooran inflicted a knife blow on Bogu Ram as well. Kishore Kumar and Bogu Ram were taken to the hospital. On 26-10-74, Dr. S. K. Sharma sent information to the S.H.O. and Kishore Kumar's statement Ex. P 1 was recorded by Jai Narain A.S.I. at 3 p. m. On the basis of this statement, an F. I. R was prepared and the case came to be investigated.' After investigation, the police submitted a challan against Pooran, Ramjilal and Bhagirath under sections 307 and 324 IPC and 34 IPC. After trial the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. After trial the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. The medical report in this case was that Kishore Kumar had two stab wounds and six incised wounds on the front and. back portions of his chest. All the injuries were caused by sharp weapon. All the injuries were simple except injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Both these injuries were stab wounds in the chest cavity deep and were individually described as dangerous to life. There was surgical emphysema which was also described as dangerous to life by Dr. Shiv Kumar Sharma PW 5. X-ray examination of Krishna Kumar was conducted by Dr. S. S. Bhargava PW 7, who found surgical emphysema in the chest and lower cervical region. According to Dr. Bhargava surgical emphysema is not a grievous injury, nor is it dangerous to life. Bogu Ram had a punctured wound on the left side of the back, caused by a sharp weapon, simple in nature. 5. Krishna Kumar PW 1 deposed that when Chetan Ram, Daru Ram, Bogu Ram, Maru Ram, and Veera were returning from the police station at about 11-30 p. m., then Bhagirath also followed them from the police station. When they reached near the shop of Dr. Deshmitra, Ramji Lal and Pooran who were some where concealed in the GALI' suddenly appeared. Bhagirath and Ramji Lal caught him, while Pooran began to hit him. When Bogu Ram came to his rescue, also stabbed him. The statement Ex. D 1 was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked him to substitute accused Pooran in the place of Rajendra who was a relative of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and was a friend of Pooran. Bogu Ram PW 2 has corroborated the story of attack given by Krishna Kumar. Chetan Ram PW 3 also supports the prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that it was Rajendra and not Pooran who stabbed Kishore Kutaar and Bogu Ram. Taru Ram PW 4 deposed that when Kishore Kumar shouted that he was being stabbed, then he saw that some boys were attacking him but- he failed to identify them. This witness was declared hostile. 6. The plea of the accused Pooran was that he was falsely implicated. Taru Ram PW 4 deposed that when Kishore Kumar shouted that he was being stabbed, then he saw that some boys were attacking him but- he failed to identify them. This witness was declared hostile. 6. The plea of the accused Pooran was that he was falsely implicated. Bhagirath and Ramjilal stated that they were both coming from the police station followed by Kishore Kumar at a distance of 50 paces. Chatra Ram was also with him. Chetan Ram was drunk and therefore Krishna Kumar was helping him to walk. They heard the noise`MARDIYA'`MARDIYA'. When they looked back, they saw that two, three boys were running from the scene of occurrence. The boys could not be identified by them because of darkness but they have been implicated falsely on account of party friction. They also produced one witness Murari Lal in their favour. 7. It was urged before the learned trial Judge that the incident occurred in the night, but the statement of Kishore Kumar was recorded at 3 a. m. There was sufficient time for concoction which was utilised to falsely implicate the accused. The learned trial Judge discarded this argument and held that the delay in the F. I. R. was only of a few hours and was possible in the circumstances of the case. Some discrepancies were pointed out in the statements of Kishore Kumar and Chetan Ram, but the learned trial Judge found that those discrepancies were not material. It was contended before him that independent witnesses have not been produced. The learned trial Judge observed that the prosecution has produced the witnesses, who were present and there was no necessity for the prosecution to multiply the number of eye witnesses. 8. It is urged before me that the whole case against Pooran was concocted. The real assailants were some other persons and Pooran was falsely implicated. Support was sought for this proposition in Ex. P 1 and Ex. D 1 in which Kishore Kumar had stated that there were one or two boys more with the assailants. When Kishore Kumar was confront with these previous statements, then, the only explanation he gave was that he did not know how these things came to be incorporated in his statements. Taru Ram PW 4 also stated that there were other boys also. When Kishore Kumar was confront with these previous statements, then, the only explanation he gave was that he did not know how these things came to be incorporated in his statements. Taru Ram PW 4 also stated that there were other boys also. It was contended that as a matter of fact these one or two boys were the real assailants, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to screen his relative Rajendra who was one of these boys, went on his own accord to the hospital and recorded the statement of Kishore Kumar. But these arguments are based upon a mere guess work and do not cast any doubt upon the prosecution case or upon the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. Tribhuvan Singh P W 6 has deposed that when the Medical Officer informed him, it was then that he gave a requisition for recording of the dying declaration of Kishore Kumar which is Ex. D1. The accused Ramji Lal and Bhagirath and Pooran were already under arrest in some other case, it was at the instance of the accused Pooran that a knife was recovered on 10-11-74. There is no reason to believe that Kishore Kumar will substitute the name of Pooran and also introduce two more accused for no rhyme or reason or just for the sake of screening Rajendra Kumar. I therefore, find no force in this contention. 9. No other argument was made, but it was pointed out that no offence under section 307 IPC was made out and it was only a case under section 324 IPC because the surgical emphysema was stated not to be dangerous to life by Dr. Bhargava. As far as Bogu is concerned, one can hold, as was done by the learned trial Judge, that it was a case of simple hurt but in case of Kishore Kumar, the number of successive injuries inflicted on his chest and back clearly show that the intention of the assailant was none other than to kill him and if these injuries had caused the death of Kishore Kumar, then, certainly the accused Pooran would have been guilty of murder. Dr. Sharma deposed that these stabbed wounds were dangerous to life and were sufficient to cause death of Kishore Kumar in the ordinary course of nature. 10. Dr. Sharma deposed that these stabbed wounds were dangerous to life and were sufficient to cause death of Kishore Kumar in the ordinary course of nature. 10. I therefore, agree with the learned trial Judge that Pooran committed an offence under section 307 IPC. However, the part played by ,the other two accused persons namely, Bhagirath and Ramjilal does not show that they shared an intention common with Pooran that Kishore Kumar should be attacked in the manner Pooran attacked him. As far as the case of Bogu Ram is concerned it is further not possible to hold that Bhagirath and Ramjilal were guilty under section 34 IPC for the injuries caused to him by Pooran. Bhagirath and Ramjilal are not guilty of the offences under sections 307 and 324 IPC both read with section 34 IPC. I maintain the conviction of Pooran and find no justification for any reduction of the offence or the sentence in his case. 11. Consequently, I direct that the appeal of Pooran be dismissed and that of the appellants Bhagirath and Ramjilal be accepted. They are acquitted of the offences they have been convicted of. They are on bail arid need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. *******