BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Amdoo alias Sheikh Ahmad and Dev kumar, both of whom, on their conviction under Section 307 I. P. C. , have been sentenced to three years RI. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, at about 10 p. m. on 17-9-1982, complainant-cum-victim Jodu Gopal was going in Darmus rickshaw from Khokhopara to Lakhenagar Chowk. On the way, both the appellants-accused were stated to have stopped the rickshaw and to have threatened the complainant with his life. The appellant-accused Dev Kumar, who was armed with a knife, made repeated concerted assaults on the complainant, resulting in injuries in the abdominal region and also on the chest region. After the incident, the appellants-accused fled away. Certain witnesses had seen the incident. They took the complainant to the police station where the complainant lodged the report. The complainant was then taken to the hospital where his injuries were got (sic) examined. Weapons of assault were subsequently seized, consequent to the memorandum of discovery of the respective accused persons. After due investigation, the appellants-accused were put up for trial. Both abjured the guilt. It was contended that the complainant was in a drunken state at the relevant time. He by nature was a quarrelsome person and the hour of the incident being a dark night, the complainant might well have been the victim of assault by some other culprits who may have enmity with him. The appellants-accused claimed themselves to be the victims of mistaken identity. The Trial Court disbelieved the defence stand. Relying on the prosecution evidence of the complainant and certain eye-witnesses, corroborated by the prompt FIR and the identification proceedings and further supported by the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, their present appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants accused has urged that from the evidence on record itself, the identity of the appellants accused as actual culprits, is doubtful in face of mutual contradictions on material points. The principal point urged is that the offence, at worst, was under Section 324 IPC and in no case under Section 307 IPC. The principal point urged is that the offence, at worst, was under Section 324 IPC and in no case under Section 307 IPC. Finally, it has been urged that both the appellants-accused have already remained in jail for a little more than seven months; and as such, considering the young age of these appellants-accused, they deserve leniency in the manner of sentence. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS advanced are without any merit. The victim PW 1 Jodu Gopal has been corroborated by the eye-witness PW 4 Shukla in the matter of the inside it, inculpating both the appellantsaccused. Jodu Gopal, immediately after the incident, is found to have appraised PW 3 Suresh Kumar and others that the appellant-accused Amdoo and his companion were the culprits who had inflicted the injuries on his person by means of knives. PW 2 Dharmu in whose rickshaw, Jodu Gopal had been going at the relevant time when the incident had occurred, has corroborated Jodu Gopals version. Further corroboration is equally available from Jodu Gopals prompt FIR Ex. P. 1 wherein the name of Amdoo has been specifically mentioned; and it has also been mentioned that his companion had also struck a knife-blow on his person Names of the eye-witnesses viz. , Shukla and Dharmu, rickshawala have also been mentioned in the FIR. Minor contradictions in the averments of these witnesses, when confronted with their earlier police statements, ate of no consequence, inasmuch as, all these witnesses are unanimous on the basic facets of the incident, inculpating the appellants-accused. ( 5 ) THIS apart, appellant-accused Amdoos companion viz. Deo Kumar, who was not known by name, is found to have been identified not only In the Court but also in the earlier test identification proceedings (Ex. P-3), conducted by PW 6 Naib Tahsildar M. K. Gupta. Thus, there is no scope for doubt that both these appellants-accused by means of their knives, had inflicted the particular injuries on Joju Gopals person. It is cruelly clearly proved that the appellant-accused Amdoo had struck the knife in the abdominal region; whereas his companion Dev Kumar had knifed in Jodu Gopals chest region. PW. 5 Dr. Mahendra Prasad Pujari, who had initially examined the injuries and P W 11 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, who had operated on all these injuries have opinion that both these injuries, Viz. PW. 5 Dr. Mahendra Prasad Pujari, who had initially examined the injuries and P W 11 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, who had operated on all these injuries have opinion that both these injuries, Viz. first bring the stab injury in the left lumber region of the abdomen and the second one being in the 5th coastal space on the right side of the chest were highly dangerous to life and were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause victims death, had he not been immediately operated upon, and, had not the injuries been immediately repaired. From the evidence of these two Doctors, it is clear that a piece of omentum had been found protruding out from the wound, there was a tear in the parietal peritoneum corresponding to the injury over the abdominal wall, communicating with exterior, and the peritoneal cavity was found full of sufficient blood. Injury on the chest, however, was found only muscle deep. Both these wounds had to be repaired in layer, one after the other, to save the victim from death, which was immediately likely to be used, had not the operation been done. Considering the medical report, and equally considering the situs of injuries and the weapons of assault used, there is no force in the contention that the offence committed. was covered, only under Section 324/34 IPC. I am clearly of the view that the appellants-accused bad committed the offence u/s 307/34 IPC by their concerted assaults on Jodu Gopal by means of their respective sharp-edged weapons which they had in their hand, at the relevant time. Defence stand is found to be without any basis and the defence evidence of PW 1 Sohanlal is obviously concocted; and as such, is of no substance in face of more than sufficient incriminating evidence adduced on the prosecution side. ( 6 ) THE appellants-accused, however, instead of being convicted purely u/s 30 I IPC, deserved to be convicted u/s 307/34 IPC. So far as the sentence of three years RI is concerned, the same is found to be quite appropriate-deserving no interference, despite the fact that the appellants-accused are young persons. This is not at all a fit case for giving them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act or of Section 360 Cr. P. C. 1973. So far as the sentence of three years RI is concerned, the same is found to be quite appropriate-deserving no interference, despite the fact that the appellants-accused are young persons. This is not at all a fit case for giving them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act or of Section 360 Cr. P. C. 1973. ( 7 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal, preferred by the two accused, being with out any merit, is dismissed with the slight modification in Trial Courts order, to the affect that instead of the conviction of the appellants-accused purely under Section 307 I. P. C they be and are now convicted under Section 307/34 I. P. C and are, each, sentenced to three years RI, as has been awarded against them by the Trial Court. The appellants-accused, who are on bail, do surrender in the Court of CJM Raipur on or by 17-9-84 for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment and on their failure to surrender by the stipulated date, they be got arrested and remanded to judicial custody for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. Appeal dismissed .