S. K. KAUL, J. These two appeals as well as criminal revisions arise out of same transaction and are in respect f same judgment. These were heard together and shall be disposed of by one judgment. The two criminal appeals were directed by Gobardhan and Baj rangi, real brothers, against their sentences and conviction to undergo four R. I. so far as Gobardhan is concerned under section 307 I. P. C. , and three years R. I. so far as Bajrangi is concerned under section 307/34 I PC The two criminal revisions arise out of a notice of enhancement issued by a learned Judge if this Court at the time of admission of the appeals. In brief, the Prosecution story is hat a Civil litigation had taken place between Ram Tirath, on one hand, and he two accused, on the other, in con solidation courts. i he Deputy Director Consolidation had decided the case in favour of Ram Tirath complainant about two and a half months before his occurrence. This was the cause for the accused to harbour a grudge against Ram Tirath. The other motive for this crime was that Ram Pher, brother of Ram Tirath, had sold a big breach Goolar three to Tilak Ram about 10 before the occurrence. In ; protest of the accused, Ram got the branch cut and removed by tilak Ram. On 29th of May. 1971, Ram Pher was returning back to his house in village Sisaur from his khalihan. The time was about 8. 30 a. m. The two used armed with Ballam, so far as Gobardhan is concerned, and Bhalla, so far as Bajrangi is concerned, emerged from their house and started beating Ram Pher. Ram Pher shouted for help Barsati, Ram Tirath, Ram Chandar, Ujagar and Mohammad came the scene of occurrence. Ram Pher ran towards south. He was chased by the accused and when he fell down to the east of the house of Barsati, he was delivered blows with their respective weapons by the accused, who ultimately escaped away. Ram Pher was rushed to the police station Kotwali in a jeep and Ram Tirath lodged report at the Police Station, Kotwali, Gonda, on the same date at about 10. 15 a. m. The distance between the village Sisaur and Police station Kotwali is about six and a half miles. Ram Pher was rushed to the police station Kotwali in a jeep and Ram Tirath lodged report at the Police Station, Kotwali, Gonda, on the same date at about 10. 15 a. m. The distance between the village Sisaur and Police station Kotwali is about six and a half miles. Ram Pher was sent to District Hospital, Gonda, for examina tion. Dr. Nirankar Singh examined Ram Pher on the same date at 11 a. m. and found following injuries on his person : 1 - Incised punctured wound "x 1/5" x " left supra clavicular fossa. 2 - Incised punctured wound " x 1/5" x 1" right side chest front upper part. 3 - Incised punctured wound 1" x 1/10" x 1" right side chest lateral aspect middle. 4 - Incised punctured wound l" x " x abdominal cavity deep with omentum protruding put through the wound on left side abdomen lower part. 5 - Incised wound " x " x bone deep back of right elbow. 6- Incised wound " x 1/10" x bone deep outer aspect of right elbow joint. 7 - incised wound 1" x 1/5" x bone deep right scapula region. Injury no. 4 was found to be grievious Injuries 1 to 3 were kept under observa tions. The remaining injuries were simple. The X-ray revealed that there was bilateral surgical emphysema. Right sided by dropheumo thorax with collapse of right lower lobe was also noticed. Consequently injuries 1 to 3 were opined as grievious. Investigation was done in the usual manner and ultimately both these ap pellants stood trial under section 307 I. P. C. The defence of the accused was com plete denial. They put up a counter version by suggesting as if a dacoity was committed at their house in between the night of 28th and 29th of May, 1971 in which Ram Pher was one of the dacoits. In this dacoity, two ladies of their house were injured and the villa gers had caused injuries upon Ram Pher. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on an appraisement of evidence, found that it were the accused who were responsible for causing injuries upon Ram Pher and as such, he sentenced and convicted them as above. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Government Advocate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on an appraisement of evidence, found that it were the accused who were responsible for causing injuries upon Ram Pher and as such, he sentenced and convicted them as above. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Government Advocate. In proof of the prosecution story, the witnesses examined were Ram Pher, Barsati, Rain Chandar and Mohammad, It is true that apart from Barsati, one else was cited in the F. I. R. but that would not be very much material in this case because Ram Pher himself has been examined and so is Barsati. The in juries of Ram Pher were examined promptly by the doctor who found these injuries to be fresh. The doctor clearly gave his opinion that these injuries could be caused on the same dated at 8. 30 a. m. and these could be caused by a Bhala and a Ballam. Barsati has no axe to grind. Since the incident took place near his house, his testimony assumes importance. No enmity could be suggested to this witness. Much was made of the fact that the two ladies of the house of the accused were examined by the doctor on 4th of June. It may be that they were brought by constable Jai Narain Upadhya but it has not been elicited as to who despatched these ladies for medical examination to this doctor and whether the two ladies exa mined by this doctor actually belonged to the house of the accused. It is significant to note that although a sugges tion was made to the witnesses, none of the accused took up this plea that a dacoity was committed at their house in connection with which the two ladies of the house were injured and Ram Pher got injuries because he was amongst the dacoity. It was not elicited from the witnesses whether the two ladies examined belonged to this village and that apart from this there could be no other ladies of their name in this village. No question was put to the investigating officer whether he had noted the inju ries of these two ladies or whether he had despatched them for their medical examination to Gonda. In fact, the two ladies were also not produced before the doctor for purpose of identifica tion. In that situation, neither the tes timony of Dr. No question was put to the investigating officer whether he had noted the inju ries of these two ladies or whether he had despatched them for their medical examination to Gonda. In fact, the two ladies were also not produced before the doctor for purpose of identifica tion. In that situation, neither the tes timony of Dr. Qazi Anwar Ahmad, nor the injury reports Exts. Kha-1 and Kha-2 could come to the rescue of the accused. Besides, if in reality, the accused were subjected to a dacoity and the villagers had seen the dacoity and had inflicted injuries upon Ram Pher, it is surprising that no F. LR. about this dacoity was lodged, nor was any witness willing to appear for the accused in support of that suggestion. At best, therefore, that is a suggestion made by the counsel for the accused to the witnesses which remains uncorroborated and without any substance, [t is true that two weapons were said to have been used, namely, Ballam and Bhala, but it was not enquired from the witnesses as to what was their shape and dimensions. The doctor clearly gave his opinion that the injuries of Ram Pher could be caused by Bhala and Ballam. That statement remains uncross-examined. In that situation, it is too late a stage to argue before us that the Bhala could not have caused the type of injuries found on the person of Ram Pher. No judicial knowledge can be imported in support of this proposition advanced be fore us to hold that their injuries upon Ram Pher could not be inflicted by a Bhala, specially when the doctor gave his opi nion on those lines and whose opinion remains uncross- examined, meaning there by that it appeared to the accused coun sel as well that the injuries could be caused by both these types of weapons. We would, therefore, agree with the finding of the trial Court that the two accused were responsible for causing injuries to Ram Pher. Charge under section 307 I. P. C. was rightly found to have been proved against the accused. The question of enhancement of sentence remains to be decided in this case. We, however, find that both the accused are in jail since the date of deli very of judgment by the trial Court which is 14th of May, 1973. Charge under section 307 I. P. C. was rightly found to have been proved against the accused. The question of enhancement of sentence remains to be decided in this case. We, however, find that both the accused are in jail since the date of deli very of judgment by the trial Court which is 14th of May, 1973. There can be no doubt that under the circumstances, the sentence awarded to both these accused is inadequate. In such cases, the Sessions Judges are expected to award at least seven years R. I, when charge under section 307 I. P. C. is proved and specially when the injuries obviously were dangerous to life so far as Ram Pher is concerned. However, by this time, both these accused must have serv ed out their sentence. It would be extremely harsh after an interval of more than four and half years to enhance the sentence, specially when these accused have already served out their sentence. In that view of the matter, we would quash the notice issued for enhancement. As a result, sentence and conviction awarded to the two accused appellants is maintained. They may have served out the sentence by this time and must have been released from jail. If they are still behind bars, they may be set at liberty inasmuch as they have already served out their sentence. Nothing further remains to be done in this case. .