JUDGMENT 1. - The learned additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur under his judgment dated March 29,1978 convicted accused appellant Kanaiyalal under sections 326/34 and 324/34 I,P.C. and accused appellant Ramesh under sections 326 and 324 IPC. Both the accused appellants have been sentenced under the first count to 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months R.I. and in the latter count to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The substantial sentences awarded have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that Mohanlal PW 2 runs his hotel under the name and style of Manmohan hotel at Bhati Chowraha Ratanada, Jodhpur. The accused persons had taken food from his hotel in a tiffin carrier a few days earlier but had not returned it. It was a practise at the said hotel of Mohanlal that a few customers were allowed the facility of taking their food in tiffin carrier which belongs to the hotel and after having consumed the food, used to return it. The accused persons inspite of demand, did not return the tiffin carrier to Mohanlal PW 2 and it is alleged that on August 27, 1977 at about 2.20 p.m. when Mohanlal PW 2 was at his hotel, his wife Smt. Sanwari PW 3 and a servant Bherusingh PW 4 were also in the hotel, both the accused persons were going on a cycle, seeing them Mohanlal again asked them to return the tiffin carrier. The accused persons got enraged because it is said he demanded to return the tiffin carrier in the presence of many persons of that locality. It is alleged that both the accused placed their cycle out side the hotel,went inside the hotel of Mohanlal & accused appellant Kanaiyalal is said to have told Ramesh, the other accused that he should put an end to the life of Mohanlal. Not only this, accused Kanaiyalal is also said to have caught hold of Mohanlal P.W. 2 and then the other accused Ramesh took out a knife from his pocket and while Kanaiyalal was holding Mohanlal PW 2, Ramesh accused repeated the assault and gave as many as four blows by his knife to Mohanlal. Not only this, accused Kanaiyalal is also said to have caught hold of Mohanlal P.W. 2 and then the other accused Ramesh took out a knife from his pocket and while Kanaiyalal was holding Mohanlal PW 2, Ramesh accused repeated the assault and gave as many as four blows by his knife to Mohanlal. Seeing that her husband is being beaten by Ramesh and that Kanaiyalal was holding him, Smt. Sanwari, his wife and Bherusingh also went near Mohan Lal, who caught hold of the accused Kanaiyalal, though Ramesh was able to escape with the knife and helped Mohanlal in holding Kanaiyalal. The police outpost was not far of and Anandkumar son of Mohanlal rushed to the police outpost and informed Prithvisingh PW 6 and Ramjilal PW 7, the two constables of the outpost that his father was being beaten by both the accused persons in the shop. Both the above named constables immediately rushed to the hotel and took the help of a motorcyclist who was going on the road and chased the accused Ramesh who entered Kuchaman house and was having a knife in his hand. The constables apprehended Ramesh, and Ramesh and Kanaiyalal who was caught at the shop were taken to the outpost. 3. A telephonic message was received by Moolaram who was posted at police station, Udaimandir from Mahatma Gandhi hospital enquiry, informing him that Mohanlal has been admitted with injury by a knife. Moolaram went to the hospital and within no time he recorded the statement of Mohanlal PW 2, his statement is Ex. P. 3 and is the FIR in the case. He thereafter registered a case No. 251 under section 307 IPC and investigation was set in motion. 4. Dr. N.S. Kothari PW 1 on the day of the incident itself, at 3.45 p.m.. the occurrence have been taken place at 2.20 p.m. examined the injuries of Mobanlal PW 2 and found the following injuries on his person : "1. Incised wound 3 cm. x O. 5 cm x skin deep just below right clavicle towards the medial and in transverse direction. 2. Incised wound 1 cm. x 0.3 cm. x skin deep on the left chest anteriorly in the line of the left nipple 10 cm. away and medial at the postal margin in transverse direction. 3. Stab wound 2.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. 2. Incised wound 1 cm. x 0.3 cm. x skin deep on the left chest anteriorly in the line of the left nipple 10 cm. away and medial at the postal margin in transverse direction. 3. Stab wound 2.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. x pleaural deep spindal set on the left side of the chest 10 cm. below and lateral to the nipple in the anterior axillary line pointing upwards and medially, bleeding plus. 4. Stab wound 2.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. x bone deep in between the 10th and 11 ribs in the post axillary line plus obliquely bleeding plus. 5. Sub conjunctival hemorrhage right eye lateral part with ecchymosis Rt. lower lid." In his opinion injuries No. 1, 2 and 5 were simple and for injuries Nos. 3 and 4 he was not sure and kept his opinion for the X-ray report as well as after observation. Injuries No. 1 to four were caused by sharp weapon and No. 5 was by blunt weapon Dr. Dalip Kumar Sankhla PW 9 who was posted as Radiologist in Mahatma Gandhi hospital, Jodhpur took the sky-gram of abdomen and of chest on August 27, 1977 of Mohanlal but he did not detect any fracture but he had his own doubts and, therefore, in his report he advised skygram of the ribs. After the receipt of the requisition from the Medical Jurist Dr. Sankhla on August 31, 1977 again took X-ray films Ex P. 14 to P. 16 and the report showed that there was fracture of 10th and 11th rib with plural reaction left dome is high in position-query fundle gas-query nature. 5. It may be stated here that when PW 6 Prithvisingh and PW 7 Ramjilal caught hold of Ramesh when he was entering Kuchaman house, Ramesh was armed with a knife and the knife Ex. 1 was seized and sealed. It was further noticed that the shirt which Kanaiyalal was wearing had stains of blood and it too was seized and sealed. The clothes of the injured as well as of Kanaiyalal and the knife were sent for chemical examination and the Chemical Examiner found that they were stains with blood. The matter was further referred to Serologist who found that the shirt of the accused Kanaiyalal was stained with human blood though the blood on the knife Ex. 1 was disintegrated. The clothes of the injured as well as of Kanaiyalal and the knife were sent for chemical examination and the Chemical Examiner found that they were stains with blood. The matter was further referred to Serologist who found that the shirt of the accused Kanaiyalal was stained with human blood though the blood on the knife Ex. 1 was disintegrated. A charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution nine witnesses were examined. Thereafter the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The case set up by the accused was that they used to supply milk on credit to Mohanlal P.W. 2 who owed some money for the milk. They deputed one Babulal, their servant to go to Mohanlal for the dues of the accused persons. Mohanlal gave beating to Babulal who on return complained to them. Thereupon Romesh went to the shop of Mohanlal and asked him as to why the boy Babulal had been heated. It was further stated that Ramesh was caught by Mohanlal, was confined in a room and was beaten. The accused persons examined Babulal D.W. 1 Ramsingh D.W. 2 in support of their defence. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case, convicted and sentenced each of the accused persons as aforesaid. 7. The contention raised by Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the appellant are (i) that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that injury No. 4 of Mohanlal was grievous, (ii) that so far as Kanaiyalal accused appellant is concerned, on the evidence on record it cannot be said that it was in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused persons that Ramesh caused injuries to Mohanlal with his knife and it also cannot be said that in any manner accused Kanaiyalal facilitated the commission of the crime or aided Ramesh in inflicting blows by knife to Mohan Lal, (iii) that the information on telephone had already been communicated at the police station, Udaimandir and, therefore, Ex. P. 3 cannot be the FIR in the case being barred by section 154 Cr. P.C. 8. P. 3 cannot be the FIR in the case being barred by section 154 Cr. P.C. 8. I will like to take up the case of both the accused separately but before that, I will take up the third submission of the learned advocate. The basis of the submission is that Moolaram P.W. 8 has clearly stated that he received a telephonic message from the enquiry office of Mahatma Gandhi hospital that Mohanlal has been admitted with knife injury. He entered a report in the general diary and proceeded to the hospital. He does not state that the name of the accused was disclosed or the information was clear so as to make out a cognisable case. Under section 154 Cr. P.C. it is the duty of the Incharge of the police station to reduce into writing every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence It could not be said from the information furnished to Moolaram on the telephone, from the enquiry of the hospital as to whether injured has been received injuries in an accident or has received in some other occurrence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the information furnished to Moolaram was not sufficient for Moolaram to come to the conclusion that a cognisable offence has been committed which requires immediate recording of information in writing by him. The learned advocate in support of his submission referred to Lachaman & another v. State, 1973 Cr. L.J. 1968 , Raberi Karsan Cova and others v. the State of Gujarat, 1977 Cr. L J. 107 and Jagabandhu Putra and Ors. v. The State, AIR 1935 Calcutta, 177 , but none of them are applicable to the facts of the instant case for the reasons already stated earlier. I, therefore, did not find any force in the third submission of the learned advocate. 9. Now, first of all I will take up the ease of accused Ramesh. The case of the prosecution is that it was he who gave blows with a knife to Mohanlal P.W. 2. Mohanlal P.W. 2 has stated that when he asked accused Ramesh and Kanaiyalal. who both were going on a cycle, for the return of his tiffin which they had taken earlier, both came to him and the accused appellant started giving beating to him with a knife. He stated that the accused gave out 7 8 blows with it. Mohanlal P.W. 2 has stated that when he asked accused Ramesh and Kanaiyalal. who both were going on a cycle, for the return of his tiffin which they had taken earlier, both came to him and the accused appellant started giving beating to him with a knife. He stated that the accused gave out 7 8 blows with it. He is corroborated by the statement of his wife P.W. 3 Smt. Sanwari. She was in the hotel and her presence was natural as she was working in the hotel of her husband. She also stated that it was the accused who gave blows with the knife to her husband Mohanlal. She and Mohanlal have stated that Bherusingh was also present. Bherusingh P.W. 4 was working at the hotel of Mohanlal and he has corroborated the statement of both Mohanlal and Smt. Sanwari. I am unable to disbelieve any of the three statements and it can be said that it was the accused who caused four injuries by a knife to Mohanlal P.W. 2. 10. The statements of the witnesses are corroborated not only by medical evidence but also by other circumstances of the case. The first circumstance is that when the beating was still being administered to Mohanlal in his hotel, Anand Kumar son of Mohanlal went to the police outpost, Ratanada which was only at a distance of sixty yards from the hotel of Mohanlal. He informed Prithvisingh and Ramjilal that it was the accused who alongwith Kanaiyalal was beating his father in the hotel. Both Prithvi Singh P.W. 6 and Ramjilal P.W. 7 have made their statements to this effect and though Anand Kumar has not been examined but there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses that they received information that the accused was also beating Mohanlal at his hotel Dr. N.S. Kothari P.W. 1 on examining Mohanlal P.W. 2 on the day of the incident within one hour and twenty five minutes of the occurrence found as many as four injuries by a sharp weapon on his person. He has stated that the injury No. 1 to 4 was caused by a sharp weapon. He has also stated that Ex. 1 the dagger could have caused the injuries. He has stated that the injury No. 1 to 4 was caused by a sharp weapon. He has also stated that Ex. 1 the dagger could have caused the injuries. Though the chemical examiner has reported that there was blood on the dagger and the Serologist says that it was disintegrated but it can be said that there was blood on the dagger. Thus the dagger is connected with the crime. The defence of the accused Ramesh has not been believed by the learned trial court and rightly so. Ramesh is said to have been beaten by Mohanlal and others but there is not a single injury on his person and in the absence of mention of his injuries in his arrest memo, he having been arrested immediately after the occurrence, his case that he was beaten can hardly be relied upon. Thus it can be said that the accused Ramesh is the author of four injuries by a sharp weapon to Mohanlal. Before I deal as to whether the injuries or any of them were grievous, I will first deal with the case of Kanaiyalal as held by the trial court an offence under section 307/34 IPC is made out. The act attributed to Kanaiyalal is that he uttered the words to Ramesh that he should an end to the life of Mohanlal. It is also said that he caught hold of Mohanlal and then Ramesh gave blows with his knife and Kanaiyalal continued holding Mohanlal when Ramesh repeated the assault. According to Mr. Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence of exhortation is a weaker type of evidence and very strong evidence is required to place reliance on such place of evidence. It may be stated here that though there was no prior concert and meeting of mind in between accused appellant Kanaiyalal and Ramesh but depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, common intention can be developed at the spur of the moment. In the instant case both the accused persons were going on a cycle when Mohanlal asked them to return his tiffin carrier. Both the accused came together to his shop and accused appellant Kanaiyalal uttered the aforesaid words, not only this, he caught hold of Mohanlal when he was still sitting and accused Ramesh gave blows with the knife. In the instant case both the accused persons were going on a cycle when Mohanlal asked them to return his tiffin carrier. Both the accused came together to his shop and accused appellant Kanaiyalal uttered the aforesaid words, not only this, he caught hold of Mohanlal when he was still sitting and accused Ramesh gave blows with the knife. It is also in the evidence that while the accused was still holding Mohanlal, Ramesh accused went on repeating the blows by knife. The fact that the accused uttered the words attributed to him is contained in the FIR Ex. P. 3 which as already stated earlier was taken down by the investigating Officer within one hour and twenty five minutes of the alleged occurrence. It can, therefore, not be said that the words attributed to the accused are afterthought. Mohanlal P.W. 2 has clearly stated in his statement that the accused came and asked Ramesh to put an end to his life. "ISKA KAAM PAKA KAR DO" and caught hold of by him by neck and then accused Ramesh took out the knife and gave blows with it. It can, therefore be said in the facts and circumstances of this case that accused Kanaiyalal facilitated the commission of offence by accused Ramesh and but for the fact that Kanaiyalal was holding Mohanlal, perhaps it would not have been easy for accused Ramesh to have inflicted blows, as many as four by a sharp weapon like knife. It may also be mentioned here that the accused was caught at the spot and was produced in the police station, his shirt was found to be blood stained, was seized and sealed and sent for chemical examination, was found to be stained with blood and the Serologist reported stained with human blood. The presence of blood on the shirt of the accused does to show that the accused was very close to the injured and that lands corroboration to the statement of Mohanlal and the other witnesses. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the accused is also responsible for having aided and facilitated Ramesh in the commission of crime. 11. The last question which survives for consideration is that as to whether injury No. 4 is serious or simple. Mr. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the accused is also responsible for having aided and facilitated Ramesh in the commission of crime. 11. The last question which survives for consideration is that as to whether injury No. 4 is serious or simple. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel submits that on August 27, 1977 X-rays were taken but no fracture was detected but it was only on August 31, 1977 that on further X-ray fracture of ribs were detected. He further submits that Dr. Sankhla has stated that on the request of the medical jurist he had taken X-ray of chest on August 31, 1977 but the request of the medical jurist was of September 1, 1977. I have already referred to the statement of Dr. Sankula, who even on August 27, 1977 had advised the medical jurist for repetition of X-ray and I feel no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Sankula that the X-rays were repeated on August 31, 1977 and on X-ray fractures of 10th and 11th ribs were detected. The injured was confined to the hospital and it can hardly be suggested that the fractures took place after the incident in between August 27, 1977 and August 31, 1977, more so when Dr. Sankhla even on August 27, 1977 advised taking further X-ray. Mr. Purohit contends that there were fractures, the injury will not be grievous. He further says to whether it was a cut wound, if so, a superficial or through and through. The radiologist can read the X-ray plate. It is not a case where the injury was described grievous only on clinical examination. It was only on X-ray examination that the injury was found to be grievous. There was no cross examination to Dr. Sankhla on behalf of the accused when he gave out in his examination in-chief that the injury was grievous and there were fractures of 10th and 11th ribs. In the very first line of the cross examination, Dr. Sankhla gave out that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus the injury was such which endangered human life, even otherwise, was grievous within the meaning of section 320 clause eightly of the Indian Penal Code. I am, therefore, of opinion of that injury No. 4 was grievous. 12. Sankhla gave out that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus the injury was such which endangered human life, even otherwise, was grievous within the meaning of section 320 clause eightly of the Indian Penal Code. I am, therefore, of opinion of that injury No. 4 was grievous. 12. The result of the above discussion is that the accused persons have been rightly convicted, accused Ramesh u/s. 326 IPC and accused Kanaiyalal under section 326/34 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of 21/2 years R.I. is not excessive. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The accused are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds immediately to undergo the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof, failing which the trial court shall take steps to get accused apprehended so that they shall undergo the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof.Appeal dismissed. *******