Short Note : 1. This criminal appeal is at the instance of 9 accused persons, who have been convicted and sentenced as per details given below :- Appellant Under sections Sentence No.1-Baboolal 147/325/324 IPC 6 months RI No.2-Lalloo alias Ramashankar 147/148/325 IPC 6 months RI Nos. 3 and 4-Kallu & Raghuvir and Ramsanehi, respectively 147/148/324 of the Indian Penal Code 6 months RI Nos. 5 to 9-Mankunda, Lakhan under section 147, IPC. 6 months RI Jagannath, Bula and Nazira respectively. and under section 323 IPC. 3 months RI Held: The case against the appellant Baboolal appears to be extremely doubtful for various reasons. Undisputedly, there is no allegation of any overt act of causing any injury to the other side. The only evidence against him is that on his command, the other accused persons started beating Laxminarayan (PW2). This is the story which has been given in the first information report. During the course of evidence; Laxminarayan (PW 2) has given a different version. He has stated that it was Lalloo (appellant No.3) who exhorted the other accused persons by saying, "finish Laxminarayan by taking his life". According to the statement of this witness in the Court, Baboolal (appellant No.1) had later on said that the accused persons should see that Laxminarayan did not escape and was killed Even according to the witnesses for the prosecution, accused Baboolal was unarmed. In the dying declaration too, there was no allegation against accused Baboolal. Under these circumstances, the version of the witnesses examined by the prosecution do not inspire confidence in respect of the accused appellant Baboolal. From the fact that he was unarmed on the spot and is an aged man, the story of the alleged exhortion appears to be doubtful. 2. As already stated above, the presence of appellant No.8 Bula and appellant No.9 Nazira cannot be held to have been established beyond doubt inasmuch as the test identification has been rejected and admittedly the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, did not know these accused persons by name prior to the incident. For the reasons stated above, the convictions of these three appellants, i.e., Baboolal, Bula and Nazira are set aside and the sentences imposed by the trial Court are also set aside. They are acquitted of the charges and are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 3. For the reasons stated above, the convictions of these three appellants, i.e., Baboolal, Bula and Nazira are set aside and the sentences imposed by the trial Court are also set aside. They are acquitted of the charges and are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants, thereafter, contended that the conviction of the appellant No.2 Lalloo and Ramashankar for the offence under section 325 IPC is bad in law, even though the findings of certain facts, as recorded by the trial Court, are accepted. He pointed out that the Civil Surgeon of the District has given a definite opinion after reading the X-ray film that there was no fracture. On going through the statement of the Civil Surgeon, I find that the contention raised by Shri Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is correct. The Civil Surgeon has clearly opined that there wag no fracture. It is true that a minor injury was caused on the finger by a sharp cutting weapon (Farsa). The conviction of the appellant No.2, Lalloo is, therefore, modified and he stands convicted under sections 147/148/324 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment is also modified and is reduced to 4 months' rigorous imprisonment instead of 6 months R.I. Appeal partly allowed.