JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by Kishna Ram, Nimba Ram, Pema Ram and Mohan Ram against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, dated April 15, 1976, by which Kishna Pam was convicted under section 307, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years while Nimba Ram, Mohan Kam and Pema Ram were convicted under section 32', IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case against the four appellants was as follows:-A complaint was tiled by Kanwra Ram son of Natha Ram in the Nyaya Panchayat, Rathkuriya against Mohan Ram, and Pema Ram appellants and other co-accused (who have been acquitted in this case by the trial Judge). The complaint was about an obstruction caused by the aforesaid accused in the way to the house of the complainant. The Nyaya Panchayat fixed March 11, 1973, for hearing the complainant. The complainant and his witnesses Kana Ram, P.W. 2, and Mangilal. PW 3, started from their village to appear before the Nyaya Panchayat on the date fixed in the case. When they had reached the outskirts of village Rathkuriya, the four appellants and the other eight co-accused (who have been acquitted by the trial Judge) came in a tractor, and, after begging the trader to a halt near the house by Meghwals, all of them got down and made a concerted attack upon Kanwra Ram complainant and his witnesses, name Kana Ram and Mangilal In the course of Marpeet the complainants wrist-watch, chain and ring fell down on the ground. The ring was soon picked up by Nimba Ram appellant while wrist-watch and chain were taken by Kana Ram co-accused Kana Ram took out Rs. 70/-. also from the pocket of Kanwra Ram. Meanwhile, Surja Ram, co-accused, also came there from village Rathkuriya any instigated the other co-accused to kill Kanwra Ram and his witness Kana Ram, as a result of which all the accused continued to beat them. The injured persons raised hue and cry which attracted Ramu Ram, Khoja, Modiram Meghwal, Fateh Singh and others to the place of occurrence. These persons intervened and rescued the injured. As a result of the beating, Kanwararam received 19 injuries out of which one was grievous and his witness Kanaram (PW 2) and Mangilal (PW3) sustained 13 and 6 injuries respectively on their persons. These persons intervened and rescued the injured. As a result of the beating, Kanwararam received 19 injuries out of which one was grievous and his witness Kanaram (PW 2) and Mangilal (PW3) sustained 13 and 6 injuries respectively on their persons. Kanwararam and his witnesses Kanaram and Mangilal reached the police station, Pipar City after the Marpeet was over and lodged a first information report Ex P. 1 of the incident with the police the very day. A criminal case under sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 379. IPC was registered on the basis of the first information report and usual investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan against the four appellants and 8 other co-accused in the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Bilara, under sections 147, 148,307,325,324,323,379 and 149, IPC. The learned Magistrate, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Session, committed all the 12 accused persons including the four appellants to the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, wherefrom the case was transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, for trial in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, charge sheeted Kishnaram appellant under sections 148 324 and 307, IPC Nimbaram was charge sheeted under sections 147, 323 and 379, IPC. Likewise charges under sections 147 and 323, IPC. were framed against Pema Ram and Mohan Ram was charged under sections 148 and 323, IPC Charges were framed against the co-accused also under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 tried the four appellants and the 8 other co-accused for the charges framed against them. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 8 other co-accused of the charges framed against them, but convicted and sentenced Kishna Ram under section 307, IPC and Nimba Ram, Mohan Ram and Pema Ram appellants under section 323, IPC as stated above. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. P.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the State. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. P.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.S. Acharya, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Firstly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution could not make out any case under section 307, IPC against Kishna Ram appellant, because there is no reliable evidence from its side on the record that any act was done by Kishna Ram with the intention or at least knowledge of causing death of Kanwara Ram and his witnesses. It was further urged that the nature of the injuries caused to the bodies of Kanwara Ram and his witnesses does not lead to an inference in the absence of proof of other circumstances that Kishna Ram had the requisite intention or knowledge referred to in section 307, IPC. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the charge under section 307, IPC has been clearly made out and the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in convicting Kishna Ram for the offence of attempt to murder Kanwara Ram and his witnesses. 4. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, I may observe that Kishnaram was charge-sheeted in the trial court under sections 148, 324 and 307, IPC. the acquitted by the trial Judge of the charges punishable under sections 148 and 324, IPC The only charge of which he was found guilty is that he inflicted a blow with an axe on the head of Kana Ram son of Gola Ram Jat resident of Kagal, Tehsil Bilara, with such intention or knowledge that, if by that act, he has caused the death of Kana Ram, he would have been guilty of murder. Hence, it has to be ascertained upon careful review of the entire evidence on the record whether Kishana Rim made an attempt to murder Kina Ram injured, at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. Kanwara Ran, PW. 1 stated in his deposition at the trial that Kishnaram, aimed a blow with his axe at the head of Kana Ram, but the latter raised his right hand to ward off the blow as a result of which his hand sustained a cut-injury. Similarly, the injuries of Kana Ram, injured, Purkha Ram, PW 6 and Puna Ram PW 7. 1 stated in his deposition at the trial that Kishnaram, aimed a blow with his axe at the head of Kana Ram, but the latter raised his right hand to ward off the blow as a result of which his hand sustained a cut-injury. Similarly, the injuries of Kana Ram, injured, Purkha Ram, PW 6 and Puna Ram PW 7. The evidence of these witnesses does not appear to be true because it stands contradicted by medical evidence. Curiously enough. Dr. I.P P. Gandhi, who medically examined the injuries of Kana Ram on July 11, 1973, at 6.15 p m. did not find any cut injury on the right hand or forearm of Kana Ram. The only injury which he found on the back of right forearm of Kana Ram 2.5" below the eminence of the right elbow was a lacerated wound ⅓" x 1/4"x 1/4" which was a simple injury caused by a blunt weapon. If Kishna Ram had the requisite intention or knowledge to kill Kana Ram, he would have aimed or inflicted several blows in quick succession at the vital parts of the body of Kana Ram with his axe. The only evidence led by the prosecution against him is that he aimed a single blow with his axe at Kana Rams head but the latter warded off it by raising his right hand. There is no further evidence that Kishna Ram made an attempt to inflict any other blow with his axe on any part of the body of Kana Ram although there was nothing to prevent him from doing so. if he had the intention or knowledge referred to in section 307, IPC to kill Kana Ram In the absence of proof of other circumstances, Kishna Ram must ordinarily be deemed to have intended to cause only that kind of injury which has been actually caused by him to Kana Ram. Apart from this, it appears that the intention of the assailants was merely to administer beating to Kana Ram, because if they had the intention or knowledge to kill the aforesaid injured persons, they would have caused more severe injuries on their persons with sharp-edged weapons which they were alleged to have in their possession. Consequently, I am of the view that the trial Judge committed an error in convicting Kishna Ram of an offence punishable under section 307, IPC. Consequently, I am of the view that the trial Judge committed an error in convicting Kishna Ram of an offence punishable under section 307, IPC. The prosecution his, however, led evidence of Kanwara Ram, PW 1, that Kishna Ram aimed a blow with the reverse side of his axe at his chest, as a result of which he sustained an injury on the chest. Thereafter Kishna Ram dealt with another blow or his knee with his axe. The evidence of Kanwara Ram is not corroborated by Kana Ram, PW 2, Mangilal PW 3, Purkha Ram PW 6 and Puna Ram PW 7, eye-witnesses who did not say in their depositions at the trial that a blow with the reverse side of an axe was aimed by Kishna Ram at the chest of Kanwara Ram and that Kanwara Ram received an injury on his chest as a result thereof, and, that another blow with an axe was inflicted by Kishna Ram on the knee of Kanwara Ram. They merely made an omnibus statement that Kanwara Ram was beaten by all the 12 accused including the four appellants.No specific part was ascribed by these witnesses to Kishnaram so far as the infliction of the injuries on the body of Kanwara Ram is concerned. Curiously enough, Dr. P.P. Gandhi, who medically examined the injured Kanwararam on July 11, 1973, did not find any injury on the knee and chest of Kanwararam. The only injury noticed by him was bruise l"x 3/4"on the left region about 5"below the nipple. Consequently Kishnaram cannot be convicted even for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Kanwararam. There is no evidence that he caused any injury to Mangilal even. Hence, he could not be held guilty for any offence. 5. As regards the convictions of Nimba Ram, Mohan Ram and Pema Ram under section 323, IPC suffice it would be to observe that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these three appellants voluntarily caused simple hurts to Kanwararam, Kanaram and Mangilal. Kanwararam clearly stated in his deposition that Mohanram caught hold of Kanaram and sat upon him and tried to inflict an injury on his body with his knife, but Kanaram caught hold of the hand of Mohanram and prevented him from inflicting the injury. Kanwararam clearly stated in his deposition that Mohanram caught hold of Kanaram and sat upon him and tried to inflict an injury on his body with his knife, but Kanaram caught hold of the hand of Mohanram and prevented him from inflicting the injury. Kanwararam further stated that Pemaram inflicted a lathi blow on the shoulder of Kanaram while Nimbaram caused an injury to the right side of his back with a lathi. Kana Ram PW2 also stated in his deposition that Mohanram caught hold of him and later on sat on his chest when he fell down on the ground and tried to inflict a blow with his knife on his head, but he warded off the blow by catching hold of Mohanrams hand. He further stated that Pemaram inflicted a blow on his right shoulder and Nimbaram caused an injury on his back with a lathi. Like wise, Mangilal PW 3 and Purkharam PW 6 stated in their depositions that Mohanram caught hold of Kanaram and threw him on the ground. Mangilal also testified to the fact that Pemaram inflicted a lathi blow on the shoulder of Kanaram while Nimbaram dealt lathi blows which fell on the wrist of his own left hand and on anklets of his legs. The evidence of these witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence also. The learned counsel for the appellants could not succeed in asking the evidence of these witnesses on any reasonable ground. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that these three appellants were rightly convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under section 323, IPC. 6. Mr. P.L. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, further urged that multiple simple injuries were sustained by Mohan Ram and Nimba Bam appellants also in the course of the same transaction as is proved by the evidence of Dr.P.P Gandhi and so,in the absence of any explanation from the side of the prosecution for the presence of these injuries on the bodies of these two appellants, it can be safety presumed that they acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person to repeal the attack made on him by Kanwara Ram and his party. The above contention has no force, because there is nothing on The record that Kanwara Ram and his party were the aggressors. The above contention has no force, because there is nothing on The record that Kanwara Ram and his party were the aggressors. On the ether hand, the prosecution has led cogent and reliable evidence to show that at the sight of Kanwararam and his two witnesses namely, Kana Ram and Mingdal, the appellants and their associates got down from the tractor and made an attack on them and voluntarily caused simple hurts to their bodies. In these circumstances, it cannot be safely held that the right of private defence of body accrued to Mohan Ram, Pema Ram and Nimba Ram appellants. 7. Lastly, Mr. P. L. Choudhary learned counsel for the appellants argued that the sentences passed against the three appellants by the trial Judge under section 323, IPC are excessive and the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of each appellant is reduced to a term already undergone by him. The above contention has some force. It appears from the record that each of the three appellants, viz, Nimba Ram, Mohan Ram and Pema Ram have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for six days They are not previous convicts for similar offence. The injuries proved to have been caused by them to the bodies of Kanwra Ram, Kana Ram and Mangilal were simple in nature caused by blunt objects. The trial court sentenced each of the appellants aforesaid to undergone rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323, IPC which sentence, in my opinion, is under duly harsh. The ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment awarded to each appellant, viz , Nimba Ram, Mohan Ram and Pema Ram is reduced to a term already under gone by him, and in) addition to the term already undergone by him, if he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. 8. The result of the above discussion is that I accept the appeal filed by Kishna Ram, set aside his conviction and sentence under section 307, IPC and acquit him of the said offence. Kishna Ram is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby discharged. 8. The result of the above discussion is that I accept the appeal filed by Kishna Ram, set aside his conviction and sentence under section 307, IPC and acquit him of the said offence. Kishna Ram is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby discharged. Further partly accept the appeal filed by Nimba Ram, Pema Ram and Mohan Ram and while maintaining their conviction under 323, IPC reduce the sentence awarded to each of them by the trial Judge to a term already undergone by him, but in addition to the sentence already undergone by him, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Nimba Ram, Pema Ram and Mohan Ram are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. Two months time is given to them to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court, failing which action shall be taken against them in accordance with law.Order Accordingly. *******