GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants who were tried and convicted for offence under section 307 and sentenced to five years R. I. by the judgment dated 29th November, 1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur have preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the said conviction and sentences. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on 21-7-1979 at about 9 in the morning the complainant Komal was returning from village Jamunia to his village Muwar. He was accompanied by his niece Mayabai (P. W. 2 ). When he reached Jhirya Naja the two appellants reached there and assaulted him with Farsa and lathi. On Mayabais shouting Devi Prasad (P. W. 4), Ratansing (P. W. 5) Roshan (P. W. 3) etc. reached on the spot. On seeing these persons they left Farsa and lathi and ran away. The complainant Komal was carried to the police station. The cause of the aforesaid incident was stated to be a week before appellant Suresh had hit a cow with his axe which was objected to by the complainant. A police, report was lodged of that incident. This event according to the prosecution was the reason, which prompted assault of the complainant by the appellants. ( 3 ) THE Sessions Judge first considered whether appellants attempted to commit murder of complainant Komal or they attempted to commit his murder in furtherance of common intention of both. Relying upon Komal (P. W. 1) and Deviprasad (P. W. 4) learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution has proved beyond doubt that a cow of Sukal was injured and stains of blood were found near the house of the appellants. They were accused by the villagers for injuring the cow. In lodging the report of the incident the appellants bore enmity against Komal. The learned Sessions, Judge further considered the actual incident and found evidence of Komal to be wholly reliable. He also found the evidence of Mayabai (P. W. 2) reliable and believed her. The testimony of Mayabai fully corroborated the version of Komal on material points. As far as other eye-witnesses are concerned the learned Sessions Judge also believed Roshan (P. W. 3) and Ratan (P. W. 5 ). On the basis of the evidence it was held that the appellant Mahesh beat complainant with Farsa and appellant Suresh beat him with lathi. The testimony of Mayabai fully corroborated the version of Komal on material points. As far as other eye-witnesses are concerned the learned Sessions Judge also believed Roshan (P. W. 3) and Ratan (P. W. 5 ). On the basis of the evidence it was held that the appellant Mahesh beat complainant with Farsa and appellant Suresh beat him with lathi. When pointed out that Dr. Koparia did not find any injury caused by lathi on the person of Komal, the learned Sessions Judge, held the same of no consequence as appellant Suresh had admitted his presence on the spot. On the aforesaid findings the learned Sessions Judge found the offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code proved beyond doubt. The appellant Suresh had taken the plea of right of self-defence but the same was found to be contrary to his report (Ex. P- 10) and not believed. Under the circumstances, the appellants were convicted and sentenced. ( 4 ) THE conviction and sentence of appellant Suresh is being challenged on the ground that he had injuries on his person as it would be clear from the evidence of Dr. Jam (P. W. 12 ). The prosecution has failed to explain these injuries. That he had right of private defence and hence no offence has been committed by him. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this plea in para 36 of his judgment and has not accepted it in view of his report (Ex. P-b ). In Ex P- 10, the appellant has stated that his brother Mahesh and complainant Komal grappled with each other due to enmity, Mahesh gave Parsa blows to Komal and by the same Farsa injuries was caused on his right hand. In fact Ex. P-10 is the complete answar to the so called right of private defence of appellant. This version is also contrary to their version in the Court. In the Court the case of this appellant was that Mahesh was not on the spot and complainant Komal had caused injury on his hand first and thereafter he had acted in his right of self-defence. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the right of self-defence is really an afterthought and appellant has miserably failed to establish it. It also cannot be ignored that Ex. P-10 was lodged for the first time after about 24 hours of the incident at village Belkhera. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the right of self-defence is really an afterthought and appellant has miserably failed to establish it. It also cannot be ignored that Ex. P-10 was lodged for the first time after about 24 hours of the incident at village Belkhera. There is no explanation as to why it was lodged at Belkhera and not at Gotegaon. Taking the overall view I am in declined to hold that unsuccessful attempt has been made by the appellants to create some circumstances to advance an argument on the basis of so called right of self-defence. Unfortunately, they have failed miserably. ( 5 ) IT is also submitted that the conviction of appellant Suresh under section 307, Indian Penal Code is bad in law inasmuch as though he is said to have caused injuries with lathi no such injury has been found on the person of the complainant. Dr. Koparia (P. W. 11) examined Komal on 21-7- 1979 at about 11-30 a. m. i. e. 21 hours after the incident and found 11 incised wounds. The doctor did not find any injury caused by lathi. It is, therefore, submitted that no offence has been made out against him. There is no substance in this argument. The appellants are brothers and have committed the offence at a distance from their village near a Nala. Their presence at the place of incident had been proved beyond doubt. Under the circumstances it must be held that they had gone to the spot having decided to commit murder of appellant Komal. That both acted in furtherance of their common intention is apparent. Both the appellants are therefore liable for offence under section 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. They have thus been rightly convicted. ( 6 ) IT is also submitted that the appellants are all of tender age of 20 and 19 years and hence they deserve to be sentenced leniently. It is no doubt true that they are young and they have a long way to go in life. But considering the facts that so many injuries have been caused by them by Farsa in furtherance of their common intention, and hence they really deserve no mercy from this Court. It is no doubt true that they are young and they have a long way to go in life. But considering the facts that so many injuries have been caused by them by Farsa in furtherance of their common intention, and hence they really deserve no mercy from this Court. Inspite of it the interest of justice would be sufficiently served if they are sentenced to three years R. I. instead of five years R. I. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid their conviction is upheld but their sentences are reduced from five years to three years R. I. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. They are directed to surrender their bail bonds and undergo sentence. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. .