SACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THE accused-appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction under section 307 read with sec. 34, I. P. C. whereby they have been sentenced to R. I. for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, further R. I. for 3 months each. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 18. 1. 1988, at about 9 p. m. , while Deorao (P. W. 1) was purchasing bidis at the shop of one Shankar, all the three appellants approached there. Appellant fajitiya caught hold of the complainant and accused-appellants Wamanrao and Damaji alias Dammu assaulted him by knife and lathi respectively. P. W. 4 Sk. Gaffar intervened and the accused-appellants fled away from the spot. A report (Ex. P-I) of the incident was lodged by Deorao (P. W. 1) with the police. The complainant was referred to medical examination. His injuries were examined by Dr. P. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 11 ). The injury report of the complainant is Ex. P-9. The doctor, on examination, found that there were 3 incised injuries and one contusion. The doctor gave no opinion about the nature of injuries whether they were grievous, or dangerous to life or simple. The injured was referred to X-ray examination and also for determination of the nature of injuries. Although the prosecution examined Shankar (P. W. 3), in front of whose shop the incident took place, Sk. Gaffar (P. W. 4), Ramesh (P. W. 5), other Shankar (P. W. 6), Rameshwar (P. W. 7) and Pandhari (P. W. 8), Yet none of these witnesses have supported the prosecution version. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Court, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence and relying upon the version of Deorao (P. W. 1), seeking corroboration from injury report, Ex. P-9, of the victim, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as stated above. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by Shri Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the appellants, that from the prosecution evidence no offence under section 307, I. P. C. could be made out and the impugned judgment is perverse and bad in law. ( 5 ) FOR making out a case under section 307, I. P. C. nature of injuries provides an important clue to the intention of the assailants. ( 5 ) FOR making out a case under section 307, I. P. C. nature of injuries provides an important clue to the intention of the assailants. In an offence under section 307, I. P. C. , intention is the crux of the offence which could be gathered only from the circumstances including the nature of injuries, parts of the body involved, seat of injuries and motive for the assault. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has relied upon P. W. 1 Deorao and his version has been found corroborated by the First Information Report (Ex. P-I) and medical evidence. But on examination of evidence, I have found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the nature of injuries its Dr. P. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 11) in the jury report (Ex. P. 9) gave no opinion about the nature of the injuries and the injured was referred to X-ray examination. The prosecution has neither produced the Skiagram nor has examined radiologist. Dr. P. K. Shrivastava had also not explored the depth of the injuries. Further, the bed head ticket, referred to in the impugned judgment, cannot be taken to have been proved as no doctor has been examined in that regard. Document has simply has seized by the police and exhibited by the witness effecting seizure. As such, there is absolutely no material in the case to infer that either of the injury was grievous or dangerous to life. The benefit of this situation would definitely go to the defence and the injuries, in the circumstances, can only be taken to be simple in nature. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, there is no material available to infer that the appellants had any intention or motive to cause death or to cause such bodily injury to the complainant which may result in his death. The version of Deorao (P. W. 1) also stands contradicted by the medical evidence with regard to the number of injuries and the seat of the injuries. Ithol (P. W. 2), father of the injured, has been confronted with his police-statement (Ex. Dl) as there were material omissions in his police statement. According to the police-statement (Ex. D-1) he is not an eye-witness, but, when he deposed in the Court, he narrated to have witnessed the incident. Ithol (P. W. 2), father of the injured, has been confronted with his police-statement (Ex. Dl) as there were material omissions in his police statement. According to the police-statement (Ex. D-1) he is not an eye-witness, but, when he deposed in the Court, he narrated to have witnessed the incident. In his deposition in the Court, this witness has further failed to state as to with what weapon appellant Waman was armed. Similar is also the version of Gulab (P. W. 10 ). In the above circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, no offence under 307, IPC, is made out. On the other hand, from the prosecution evidence, it is established beyond doubt that the accused appellants assaulted Deorao (P. W. 1 ). Therefore, they are liable to be convicted under section 324 read with section 34, IPC. ( 7 ) THE appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under section 307/34, IPC, are altered and they are instead convicted under section 324 read with section 34. IPC. As regards the sentence, accused appellant No. 2 Waman has undergone about 3 years R. I. , whereas the other two appellants have undergone about seven monthst R. I. Appellants Fajitiya and Damaji alias Dammu, appellants 1 and 3 respectively, are on bail. The incident is of the year 1988 and now sending the appellants No. 1 and 3 to jail after about 4 years of the incident would serve no useful purpose. The ends of justice would sufficiently be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, or, in default to suffer R. I. for three months each. They are sentenced accordingly. Appellant No. 2 Waman is sentenced to the period already undergone by him which is about 3 years only. The amount of fine, if deposited by him, shall be refunded. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed partly. .