Appellants by this appeal has challenged their conviction and sentence under section 308 Indian Penal Code recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha Distt. Datia in Sessions Trial No. 83/94 by the judgment dated 3.4.1997. They have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellants were tried on a charge under section 307 IPC, and the learned trial Court having appreciated the evidence came to conclusion that offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code was made out against accused appellant and therefore, convicted and sentenced them accordingly. The conviction and the sentence of the appellants under the impugned Judgment was challenged on grounds inter alia that the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and. therefore, conviction was bad in law. It was also challenged on the ground that the injured Narayan should not have been believed when the eye-witnesses PW2 Prabhu was not relied by the Court below. I have heard at length learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as for the State and perused the records. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the bar restricted his arguments to the extent that looking to the nature of injury on the person of Narayan, offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code was not made out but at the most offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code was made out. On going through the statement of injured Narayan (PW1) and medical evidence, there appears no force in the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the appellants. Narayan had sustained as many as 13 injuries and injury No. 1 is incised wound situated over right side of neck measuring 6 cm x l/2cm x 1/4 cm. He also sustained another lacerated wound over front and right side of forehead, stab wound situated over right side of temporal region size ¼cm x ¼cm x ½cm. Another lacerated wound on temporal region, one stab wound situated over right side of pelvic region size ¼cm x ¼cm x ½cm. According to PW1 Narayan, the stab wounds were caused by appellant Harisingh by ballam and incised wound was caused by Mansingh by use of farsa. Other injuries were caused by an unknown third man who accompanied appellants but could not be traced out because injured Narayan did not know him. According to PW1 Narayan, the stab wounds were caused by appellant Harisingh by ballam and incised wound was caused by Mansingh by use of farsa. Other injuries were caused by an unknown third man who accompanied appellants but could not be traced out because injured Narayan did not know him. The incident took place because the victim Narayan was not ready to enter into compromise with the appellants in the matter of some land dispute. Two days prior to the incident, appellant Mansingh had threatened PW1 Narayan that in case he (Narayan) did not enter into compromise, he would be killed and it is in pursuance to that threat that Narayan was assaulted on the road side when he was on way. Therefore, assault was clearly pre- determined and the use of deadly weapons farsa and ballam coupled with the location of injuries clearly indicated the intention of the assailants. In these circumstances, the case was clearly covered under section 308 Indian Penal Code and not under section 324 Indian Penal Code and the learned trial Court had committed no mistake in convicting the appellants for offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code. Consequently, their conviction under section 308 Indian Penal Code is affirmed. In the circumstances of the case, sentence of three years Rigorous Imprisonment appears enough to meet the ends of justice besides amount of fine already imposed by learned trial Court. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant under section 308 Indian Penal Code is confirmed. However, their sentence is reduced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months. The period undergone by the appellants in custody shall be adjusted in the period of sentence.