JUDGMENT G.D. Patil, J. - The two appellants-accused who have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 307, I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. along with another co-accused one Sudam have filed the instant appeals challenging their conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, by his judgment and the order dated 31st December, 1993. 2. The prosecution story was to the effect that the three accused are the real brothers and there was difference of opinion between them on one hand and their brother Shriram on the other hand over the distribution of their mother's ornaments in the morning on the day of the incident. On account of this difference of opinion and fight between them, it was further alleged that when the victim Shriram was passing from the road in the evening he was assaulted by these three accused and he got injured. The offence, therefore, under section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. was registered and as stated above ultimately they came to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 307, IPC read with Section 34, I.P.C. 3. Heard Shri Daga learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Shri Daga frankly conceded that this was not the case for claiming clean acquittal of the appellants. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to my notice the evidence on the record in general and rightly pointed out that the appellants have been rightly held to be involved in the incident in question in which the beating was given to the victim Shriram. Having heard both the learned counsel, there does not appear to be any scope for interfering with the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence in detail in so far as the findings relate to the involvement of the present appellants in the incident in question. 4. It is further urged by Shri Daga learned counsel for the appellants that even accepting the involvement of the appellant-accused in the incident in question, the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Session's Judge, so far as, it convicts and sentences the appellant for the offences punishable under section 307, I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be sustained. Having regard to the nature of the injuries as found on the victim Shriram, it is pointed out that out of the ten injuries, two are fractures, one is contusion near the eye and could not be caused by sharp weapon. It is further pointed out that the Doctor attributed the two injuries of fracture to fall of the injuried from the bicycle. It is further contended that the remaining all the injuries and the incised wound, at least three of them, namely, injury Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are not obviously on the vital part, they being on the right arm and right upper arm and the lower lip. The Doctors have not stated the nature of the incised wound nor have measured the depth thereof. There are only two incised wounds on the head, one on the frontal region and another on parietal region. Though, the Doctor has stated that these injuries are dangerous, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that this statement is in most general terms. Since the Doctor in his examination-in-chief did not say anything specifically about the nature of these injuries, his statement in the cross-examination that the injuries can be said to be serious cumulatively has to be read with caution and having regard to this evidence it cannot be said that those injuries were such as to attribute intention on the part of the accused of murdering the accused. At the most in these circumstances, the offence, would fall under Section 324, I.P.C. and the appellants having been behind the bars from 31.12.1993 the period of sentence undergone by them in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be held as sufficient to meet the ends of justice and as such the appeal be allowed at least to this extent. Shri Daga, the learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that in fact, another co-accused Sudam had come up before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79/94 which was allowed and his conviction under section 307, I.P.C. was convicted into Section 324, IPC read with section 34, IPC and he has been ordered to be released on the sentence of rigorous imprisonment already undergone which was only for about six months. This was in Criminal Appeal No. 79/94 decided on 6th July, 1994. This was in Criminal Appeal No. 79/94 decided on 6th July, 1994. In the submissions of Shri Daga the accused are also similarly entitled to the same relief, this Court having decided the nature of the injuries and sentenced the other co-accused for the period undergone, which as pointed out earlier was only about six months. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not seriously dispute the nature of the injuries as found though, he tried to urge that since these two accused have taken an active part in assaulting the victim, their case cannot be equated with that of another co-accused Sudam. 6. It is apparent from the evidence on the record including that of the Doctor, a detailed reference to which has been made as stated hereinabove during the course of submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, that no intention of committing the murder of the victim can be attributed to the appellants and the other co-accused. In fact such finding has already been recorded by this Court in the Judgment dated 6th July, 1994 in Cr. A. No. 79/94. It is, therefore, not necessary to give reasoning in detail in this behalf. It would be suffice to say that in view of the evidence on record and the aforesaid Judgment of this court in relation to co-accused Sudam, the conviction under section 307, IPC of the present appellants also cannot be sustained and that it will have to be converted from Section 307, I.P.C. of Section 324, I.P.C. read with Section 34, IPC. It is in this view of the matter following order is passed. 7. The instant appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court on the appellants under section 307, read with section 34, I.P.C. is hereby set aside, instead the accused-appellants are convicted the offence under section 324, I.P.C. and they section 34, I.P.C. and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. It is ordered that they be released forthwith if not required in any other offence. The sentence of fine as awarded by the trial Court is confirmed. Appeal allowed partly.