JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated, April 18, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (Camp Aklera) in Sessions Case No. 6/95, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under: U/s. 307 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- In default of payment of fine, six month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 326 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months' rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 325 IPC Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, one months' rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC Six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On recovery of the amount of fine, 75% of the same was ordered to be paid to the injured Onkar Lal by way of compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that Crime No. 59/94 was registered at the Police Station, Bhalta- district Jhalawar on the oral statement of the injured Onkar Lal who was taken there on a cot. This statement was recorded at 7.30 p.m. on the very day of the incident which was alleged to have taken place at 4 p.m.. in the field near village Rojya. According to the prosecution, the appellants came there with `Gadasis' and assaulted the informant Onkar Lal causing several injuries on his person. The injuries were examined by PW 6. Dr Ramesh Chand Dube, Medical Jurist, S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar, at 1 a m in the night and he found the following injuries vide injury report Ex.P 4 : 1. Transverse Incised wound 5 X 2 X bone deep over left elbow joint Triceps muscles cut, Radial nerve cut. Oleranion bone & neck of Radius cut. 2. Transverse Incised wound 3 X .5' X bone deep over upper 1 /3rcJ of left leg (Post, aspect). 3. Transverse Incised wound 2.5' X 7" X bone deep., over kuddle ⅓ of left leg (lateral aspect). 4. Lacerated wound 2.5" X .5" X bone deep over lower 1 /3rd of left leg (frontal aspect). 5. 2. Transverse Incised wound 3 X .5' X bone deep over upper 1 /3rcJ of left leg (Post, aspect). 3. Transverse Incised wound 2.5' X 7" X bone deep., over kuddle ⅓ of left leg (lateral aspect). 4. Lacerated wound 2.5" X .5" X bone deep over lower 1 /3rd of left leg (frontal aspect). 5. Lacerated wound 3" X 1/2 X bone deep over upper ⅓rd of Rt. Leg (Medical aspect). 6. Oblique Incised wound .7" X .2" X bone deep over lower 1 /3rd of Rt leg. 7. Oblique lacerated wound 21/2" X 1/4" X 1/4" over left temporal bone of Head. 8. Tenderness - Over left fore arm. Injury No. 1 was opined to be grievous as it was a complete cut of radius neck with muscles cut and radial nerve cut. On X-ray examination, injuries No. 4, 5 and 8 were also found to be grievous as there were fractures of fibula and tibia, humorous and radius ulna bones. 3. After completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants in the Court of Civil Judge (Lower Division) cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aklera on 26.9.94 Under sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323/34 IPC. The offence Under section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar from where it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. 4. After framing of charges, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to seek contain of the appellants. The defence of the accused in their statements Under section 313 Cr.PC. was of denial. No witness was examined in defence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants seriously contended that except the injured Onkar Lal, other eye- witnesses of the occurrence have not supported the prosecution version and that the injured Onkar Lal not a witness of sterling worth being highly interested in the prosecution. Learned counsel therefore, urged to acquit the appellants of all the charges. In the alternative, it was contended that the offence Under section 307 IPC is not made out either from the nature of the injuries and from the fact that there was no motive for committing murder. Learned counsel also prayed for substantial reduction in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants. 6. In the alternative, it was contended that the offence Under section 307 IPC is not made out either from the nature of the injuries and from the fact that there was no motive for committing murder. Learned counsel also prayed for substantial reduction in the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants. 6. I considered the above contentions and minutely examined the entire material on record as well as the judgment of the trial Court under challenge in this appeal. 7. It is true that except the injured Onkar Lal other eye- witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and they were declared hostile by the prosecution for making statements contrary to their earlier statements made before the Police during investigation. Inspite of that after going through the statement of the injured Onkar Lal, I find that his testimony is quite natural consistent and firm. He has categorically stated about involvement of both the appellants in assaulting him. His evidence has not been shaken at all in his cross-examination and there is nothing on record to show that the injured Onkar Lal was having any animosity or malice to falsely implicate the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution case is not damaged by the fact that other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case about the occurrence. Further, the statement of the injured Onkar Lal gets corroboration from the First Information Report which was promptly made by him within 31/2 hours of the incident at the Police Station which was at a distance of 25 K. Mtrs. from the place of occurrence. His statement is corroborated by the evidence of PW. 1 Karan Singh to horn the names of the appellants were narrated by the assailants by the injured immediately after the incident. The testimony of PW. 1 Karan Singh has not been assailed by the accused as he was not subjected to any cross- examination I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence does not support or corroborate the statement of the injured. It is true that as per injury report Ex.P 4, the injured Onkar Lal had sustained four cut wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and three lacerated wounds by blunt object. The lacerated wounds appear to have been sustained by him from the reverse side of `Gadasis' which were used by the appellants as weapons of offence. It is true that as per injury report Ex.P 4, the injured Onkar Lal had sustained four cut wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons and three lacerated wounds by blunt object. The lacerated wounds appear to have been sustained by him from the reverse side of `Gadasis' which were used by the appellants as weapons of offence. 8. The next important question which requires consideration is as to what offence or offices are made out against the appellants ? A perusal of the injuries sustained by injured Onkar Lal shows that all of them are on his legs and hands. Not a single injury is on the vital part of the body. PW. 6 - Dr. Ramesh Chand Dubey who examined the injury, has not stated that the injuries sustained by injured Onkar Lal were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death or likely to cause his death. He has not even opined that the injuries or any of them were/was dangerous to life. No motive of the occurrence has been brought on record. In view of this, offence under section 307 IPC is not made out against the appellants. However, the other offences are made out, but after their conviction under section 326 and sentencing them for the same, their further conviction and sentence Under sections 325, 324 and 323 was not justified.Consequently, this appeal succeeds in part. The conviction and sentences of the appellants Under section 307 IPC are set aside. It is further held that no separate conviction and sentence Under sections 325, 324 and 323 IPC is necessary, as such, their conviction and sentence Under sections 325, 324 and 323 IPC are set aside. The appellants are convicted Under section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. However, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants Under section 326 IPC is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment and in lieu of this reduction of sentence, fine is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- each.The net result is that the appellants stand convicted Under section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- each.The net result is that the appellants stand convicted Under section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. In case, the amount of fine is recovered the whole of it shall be paid immediately by the trial Court to the injured Onkar Lal.The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.Appeal Partly allowed. *******