JUDGMENT S. K. Kaul, J. 1. These two appeals as well as Criminal Revisions arise out of same transaction and are in respect of same judgment. These were heard together and shall be disposed off by one judgment. The two criminal appeals were directed by Gobardhan and Bajrangi, real brothers, against their sentence and conviction to undergo four years' RI so far as Gobardhan is concerned under section 307 IPC, and three years' RI so far as Bajrangi is concerned under section 307/34 IPC. The two criminal revisions arise out of a notice of enhancement issued by a learned Judge of this Court at the time of admission of the appeals. 2. In brief, the prosecution story is that a civil litigation had taken place between Ram Tirath, on one hand, and the two accused, on the other, in consolidation courts. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had decided the case in favour of Ram Tirath complainant about two and a half months before this 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 branch of Goolar tree to Tilak Ram about 10 or 12 days before the occurrence. Inspite of the protest of the accused, Ram Pher had got the branch cut and removed by Tilak Ram. On 29th of May, 1971, Ram Pher was returning back to his house in village Sisdur from his Khalihan. The time was about 8-30 a. m. The two accused armed with Ballam, so far as Gobardhan is concerned, and Bhala, so far as Baj- rang is concerned, emerged from their house and started beating Ram Pher. Ram Pher shouted for help, Barsati, Ram Tirath, Ram Chander, Ram Ujagar and Mohammed came to 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 Sisdur 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 Sisdur and police station Kotwali is about six and a half miles. Ram Pher was sent to District Hospital, Gonda, for examination Dr. Nirankar Singh examined Ram. Pher on the same date at 11 a.m. and found following injuries on his person : Injury no. 4 was found to be grievous. Injuries 1 to 3 were kept under observation. The remaining injuries were simple. The X-ray revealed that there was bileteral surgical emphysema. Right sided by drophenno thorax with collapse of right lower lobe was also noticed. Consequently injuries 1 to 3 were opined as grievous. 3. Investigation was done in the usual manner and ultimately both these appellants stood trial under section 307 IPC. 4. The defence of the accused was complete 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 villagers 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. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Government Advocate. 6. In proof of the prosecution story, the witnesses examined were Ram Pher, Barsati, Ram Chandar and Mohammad. It is true that apart from Barsati, no one else was cited in the FIR but that would not be very much material in this case because Ram Pher himself has been examined and so is Barsati. The injuries 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 date 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. The doctor clearly gave his opinion that these injuries could be caused on the same date 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 ladles 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 examined by this doctor actually belonged to the house of the accused. It is significant to note that although a suggestion 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 their house were injured and Ram Pher got injuries because he was amongst the dacoits. 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 injuries 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 identification. In that situation, neither the testimony of Dr. Qazi Anwar Ahmad, nor the injury reports Ext. 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 FIR 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. It 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. At best, therefore, that is a suggestion made by the counsel for the accused to the witnesses which remains uncorroborated and without any substance. It 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 before us to hold that the injuries upon Ram Pher could not be inflicted by a Bhala, specially when the doctor gave his opinion on these lines and whose opinion remains uncross-examined, meaning thereby that it appeared to the accused's counsel 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 u/Section 307 IPC 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 delivery 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' RI when charge u/Sec. 307 IPC 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 served out their sentences. It would be extremely harsh after an interval of more than four and half years to enhance the sentence, specially when both these accused have already served out their sentence. In that view of the matter, we would quash the notice issued for enhancement. 7. 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. In that view of the matter, we would quash the notice issued for enhancement. 7. 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 farther remains to be done in this case. Ordered accordingly.