JUDGMENT 1. -By way of the instant application the accused-appellants have sought suspension of sentence of 5 years R.I. pursuant to their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun dated 28.7.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 68/94 whereby, the said appellants were convicted for offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo 3 months S.I. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court for hearing on 12.8.1999 and the record has also been received from the trial Court. 3. The case of the appellants in short is that on the basis of the written report by Onkar (PW 5) vide Exh. P/7 dated 25.2.1994 lodged with the Investigating Agency by the complainant to the effect that on 24.2.1994 i.e. the date of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m. complainant's nephew Shivcharan (PW 6) was taking bath at the Tube-Well when the accused-appellants - Dhan Singh and Babu Lal both sons of Indraj and his wife Smt. Shanti and Angoori wife of Dhan Singh who were holding the weapons of offence like Dharia, Pharsa and Lathis pounced upon Shivcharan. Accused-Dhan Singh inflicted Pharsa blow on the head of Shivcharan (injured) which not only resulted in grievous injuries on his head (parietal region) but also on the left hand resulting imputation of his Thumb and Index Finger as a result of which Shivcharan fell down unconscious. Accused-Babu Lal inflicted Dharia blow on the head of Shivcharan resulting in imputation of his Right Ear. Thereafter. Shanti wife of Dhan Singh inflicted Lathi blows resulting in injuries on the head and on the Left Eye of injured-Shivcharan. Angoori wife of Babu Lal also inflicted 2 lathi blows on the right hand and left foot of Shivcharan. On raising hues and cries by Shivcharan the immediate neighbours namely Ram Singh and Madan arrived at the place of occurrence and saved the injured. On the basis of the aforesaid report Exh. P/7 FIR was lodged vide Ex. P. 11 for offence under section 307/34 IPC on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the accused by the trial Court. Recoveries of the weapons of offence were also made by the Investigating Agency from the accused. 4. The charges were framed against the accused for offence under section 307/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. P. 11 for offence under section 307/34 IPC on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the accused by the trial Court. Recoveries of the weapons of offence were also made by the Investigating Agency from the accused. 4. The charges were framed against the accused for offence under section 307/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13 witnesses who were cited on behalf of the prosecution were examined. From the perusal of the injury report Ex. P/I prepared by Dr. Namo Narain Meena (PW I) vide MLR No. 80/24.2.1994 of Shivcharan, it is apparent that he sustained grievous incised and bruise injuries thus : Incised wound:- 5 cm x 0.6 cm deep on Right Front Parietal Region of Skull; 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm skin cartilage deep on posterior surface of Right Pinna medially in upper part through and through penetration in pinna of 0.8 cm in middle part of wound and there is complete clean cut of 2 cm x 0.7 cm in upper most part Helix of Right Ear pinna; 2.3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on space between Left Thumb and Index Finger of Right Hand; 5 cm x 0.7 cm x Bony deep on Right Leg. Bruise would:- 3 cm x 2 cm on left side of Forehead near Left Eye brow; 4 cm x 2.5 cm on Left Scapular region of Back; 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm on Lumber region of Back; 8 cm x 3 cm on Left Forearm posterior medially in middle I/3rd part; 10 cm x 4 cm on Left Leg. 5. In cross-examination Dr. Namo Narain Meena (PW I) has deposed that Injury Nos. 1 & 2 were grievous in nature which were caused to injured-Shivcharan by a sharp-edged weapon which could not be caused as a result of fall of injured. Regarding Injury No. 1, PW I deposed that the said injury was caused on the right parietal region of the skull of the injured which was profusely bleeding. As regards Injury No. 2, he deposed that Right Ear of the injured was imputed resulting in permanent impairment. The said corroboration of PW I was supported by the other eye-witnesses. 6. Mr. As regards Injury No. 2, he deposed that Right Ear of the injured was imputed resulting in permanent impairment. The said corroboration of PW I was supported by the other eye-witnesses. 6. Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted to the instant case and the case does not fall within Exception I & 2 of Section 300 IPC since there was neither any knowledge nor intention on the part of the accused in absence of which, no motive can be attributed to the accused for offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that despite having sustained the aforesaid injuries, injured-Shivcharan (PW 6) was conscious and this is not a case in which the appellants should have been convicted for the offence under section 307/34 IPC. He has further contended that cross-cases were lodged not only against the accused-appellants but also against the members of the complainant party for offence under section 323/147 IPC. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor bas vehemently controverted the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants contending that since the statement of the injured-Shivcharan (PW 6) stands fully corroborated from the statement of PW I Dr. N.N. Meena who opined that causing injury on the person of the injured cannot be ruled out in view of Injury Nos. 1 & 2 being grievous in nature and fracture of right parietal region of the skull of the injured. He has further controverted that manner in which the accused had inflicted repeated blows on the person of the injured on the basis of which, it can be inferred that there was knowledge as well as the intention on the part of the accused to have caused grievous injuries on the person of the injured. Hence, the accused have been rightly convicted for offence punishable under section 307 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 8. Prima facie, I do not find that any case has been made out for suspension of sentence of the accused-appellants. The application for suspension of sentence being devoid of any merit is consequently rejected.Petition rejected. *******