M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants herein face conviction and sentence principally under S. 307 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I. P. C.) under the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1980 rendered on 19- 10-1981 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. ( 2 ) THE facts of the prosecution case indicate that the complainant Meghaji hamabhai belonged to one of the factions, namely, Kanbis and the appellants being the accused belonged to the other faction - Kolis in village Gordaka within Gadhda taluka in the District of Bhavnagar. The root cause of the assault on the complainant was some dispute with regard to the right of way. Two police constables were posted to see that there was no breach of peace in the area and that persons belonging to rival factions did not take law in their hands. It appears that the Koli group was little more powerful requiring the Kanbi seeking police protection. The appellants conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1980. (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.) (referred to as the accused herein) belong to Koli community; whereas the complainant Meghaji Hamabhai belongs to Kanbi community. Complainant had sought police protection. Constable Gudhabhai Tapubhai was one of the constables who was, therefore, posted in the village. He went to Gadhda Police Station to seek guidance of P. S. I. with regard to whether he and his companion constable should abide by the request of the complainant for moving around him in order to protect him. On the day of incident, namely, on 21-6-1978 the complainant Meghaji hamabhai had also gone to Gadhda Court to obtain certified copies of the documents. Constable Gudhabhai had also gone to Gadhda to seek guidance of P. S. I. Both of them returned at around 3-00 Oclock in the afternoon by the bus coming from gadhda and proceeding towards Botad. The constable was on the rear side of the bus and came out from the bus earlier and started proceeding towards the village. Whereas the complainant Meghaji Hamabhai was in front seat and the bus being over-crowded took time to come out of the bus. The constable was on the rear side of the bus and came out from the bus earlier and started proceeding towards the village. Whereas the complainant Meghaji Hamabhai was in front seat and the bus being over-crowded took time to come out of the bus. When he got down and proceeded a little, the accused No. 1 Koli Jeram Bhimji started beating the complainant with a piece of cycle chain. He also assaulted the complainant with a knife. Other accused who had accompanied the accused No. 1 also assaulted the complainant with knives causing various injuries. Constable Gudhabhai who was little ahead of the complainant returned. On his efforts to prevent any further damage and on his interception of the assault, he was also given one blow by accused No. 1 with the piece of cycle chain. The constable, however, immediately alerted himself and raised his rifle. By that time the complainants son Bhimaji Meghajibhai had also rushed to the scene of offence and intervened. He was given blows with chain and knife, particularly by the accused No. 1. Since the constable raised his rifle, all the accused ran away. The complainant Meghaji Hamabhai was lying injured at the site when two Kathi Darbars, namely, Ravtubhai Ranubhai and Amkubhai Jilubhai happened to pass-by on a motor-cycle. On request being made by the constable to take the injured to Gadhda hospital, one of them, namely, Amkubhai took the injured complainant Meghaji and his son Bhimaji to Gadhda hospital. This being the medicolegal case, the doctor on duty informed the police station and the head constable from the police station reached the hospital and recorded the first information report. After registration of the offence, the police station officer, Gadhda Police Station sent the complaint to Balvantsinh Dajibha, Jamadar of Gadhda outpost, who conducted investigation and upon completion of the investigation the accused persons were initially charged with the offences punishable under Secs. 324, 323, 332 read with S. 114 of the I. P. C. However, the learned Sessions Judge directed the learned magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions for the offence punishable under Secs. 307, 324, 323, 332 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. in Criminal Revision application No. 31 of 1979. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Charge as per Exh. 3 came to be framed on 22-7-1981. 307, 324, 323, 332 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. in Criminal Revision application No. 31 of 1979. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Charge as per Exh. 3 came to be framed on 22-7-1981. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was tried before the learned addl. Sessions Judge. Upon conclusion of the trial the statements of the accused were recorded under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short cr. P. C. ) and after hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the accused and the learned public Prosecutor for the State, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar passed following order :-"all the accused stand convicted for offence under S. 307 read with S. 34 of the indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to further rigorous imprisonment of fifteen days. Over and above accused No. 1 Koli Mera (Jeram) Bhimaji stands convicted for offences under Secs. 323 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo 7 days R. I. for the first count and three months R. I. and fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to undergo fifteen days R. I. for the second count. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. Accused No. 2 Meghaji Bhimaji stands convicted for offence under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to one months R. I. and fine of rs. 100/- in default to undergo 15 days R. I. "substantive sentence to run concurrently. All the muddamal articles being valueless are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period under S. 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " ( 3 ) THIS appeal has been directed against conviction and sentence as aforesaid by order dated 3-12-1981. The same was admitted and the appellants were enlarged on same bail with fresh bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) APART from the evidence of the panch witnesses the trial Court has dealt with the evidence of the injured eye witnesses including the injured constable Gudhabhai tapubhai P. W. 12 Exh. 33. The evidence of P. W. 11 Exh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) APART from the evidence of the panch witnesses the trial Court has dealt with the evidence of the injured eye witnesses including the injured constable Gudhabhai tapubhai P. W. 12 Exh. 33. The evidence of P. W. 11 Exh. 31 Meghaji Hamabhai has also been read before this Court. The evidence of his son Bhimaji Meghaji P. W. 13 Exh. 34 has been referred to by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. However, having gone through the evidence of all these three eye witnesses, it does not appear and it also could not be noticed that there is any substantial variance in these witnesses having testified to the facts of the prosecution case. The incident has occurred in broad day-light. The witnesses well knew the accused persons. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly observed that there was no possibility of any mistaken identity. Besides, the evidence of driver and conductor of the Bus P. W. 9 Bijalbhai Gigabhai Exh. 24 and P. W. 10 Hajibhai Ismailbhai Exh. 25, as also the evidence of another eye witness Jivrajbhai Dayabhai P. W. 16 Exh. 42 lend support to the prosecution story in some or the other respects. Same is the position with regard to evidence of the independent persons who had taken the injured eye witnesses to the Gadhda Hospital. They are P. W. s 7 and 8 Exhs. 22 and 23 Ravtubhai Ranubhai and Amkubhai Jilubhai. This is not a case where any story with regard to false implication could be set up even at the trial stage. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and the facts of the prosecution case have been rightly held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the appellants, however, has closely read the evidence of P. W. 2 Dr. Bhanushankar Kantilal Joshi Exh. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and the facts of the prosecution case have been rightly held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the appellants, however, has closely read the evidence of P. W. 2 Dr. Bhanushankar Kantilal Joshi Exh. 13 for the purpose of making a submission that the appellants could never have been convicted for the offence punishable under S. 307 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. and this was a case which could appropriately be covered under the provisions of S. 324 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. It is no doubt true that the evidence of this Doctor clearly indicates that the injuries were simple injuries. He goes to the extent of testifying that had the injuries been grievous, the injured eye witnesses could not have recovered from the injuries within about 7 to 10 days with the wounds having healed up. It is also true that the conviction for the substantive offence is under S. 324 and not 326 of the I. P. C. However, for consideration of application of S. 307 number of circumstances attending the prosecution story will have to be borne in mind. The learned A. P. P. for the State has in this connection referred to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama patil, reported in AIR 1983 SC 305 . The observations head-noted from para 9 might be noted :-"to justify a conviction under S. 307 it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. "in the present case the appellants had assaulted the injured complainant in a public place and in a broad daylight. One of the appellants had even assaulted the injured constable P. W. 12 Gudhabhai Tapubhai Exh. 33. Thus, apart from the fact that the injuries caused to the injured complainant were quite simple in nature, the intention on the part of the appellants could not be said to be merely to cause simple hurt either for the purpose of teaching a lesson to the complainant or for the purpose of generating atmosphere of fear as has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. Under such circumstances, the aforesaid observations will carry fullest weight insofar as facts of the present case are concerned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) HAVING gone through the evidence of all the witnesses, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appeallants for the offences as set out in the order and reproduced hereinabove. .