Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29-5-1989 passed by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in S.T. No. 1150/165 of 1979/83 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Secs. 307/3.4 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Appellant No. 2, namely, Hari Narain Pasi has further been convicted for the offence under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan, is that the Lalan Prasad gave his fardbeyan at Dehri Hospital on 23-1-1978 at about 2.30 a.m. stating therein that on 22-1-1978 at about 9.30 p.m. he was taking rest in his shop. Some body knocked the door of the shop and as such he opened the door and he saw the appellants in the light of lantern burning there. Appellant Sukhdeo Pasi pushed him, appellant Laxmi Pasi gave a fasuli blow on his neck and appellant Hari Narain Pasi took away box containing Rs. 50.00 . On alarm raised by him his father Suraj Pal, Ram Swaroop and Kameshwar Pal came there. The motive of the occurrence as alleged was that there was enmity with the appellants. On the basis of fardbeyan formal First Information Report was drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity. Counsel for the appellants did not appear and as such Court appointed Miss. Bela Singh to appear in this case on behalf of the appellants. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses, out of whom P.Ws. 1 & 2 were declared hostile. P.W. 3 is the informant, P.Ws. 4 & 5 claimed to have seen the appellants running away P.W. 6 is Doctor who examined the informant, P.W. 3. P.W. 7 is a formal witness. 5. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night at about 9.30 p.m. The informant claimed to have identified the appellants in the light of lantern burning in the shop. P.W. 3, the informant, is the Only eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 7 is a formal witness. 5. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night at about 9.30 p.m. The informant claimed to have identified the appellants in the light of lantern burning in the shop. P.W. 3, the informant, is the Only eye-witness to the occurrence. He also sustained injuries. The witness has deposed in his evidence that as soon as he opened the door appellant Sukhdeo Pasi pushed him and thereafter appellant Laxmi Pasi gave Fasuli blow on his neck. The witness also stated, that accused-persons after occurrence threatened that if he would depose in the case, he will have to face consequences. The witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt his testimony. P.Ws. 4 85 5 have stated in their evidence that they came on alarm raised by the informant. They found bleeding injury on the neck of the informant, P.W. 3, and also saw the appellants running away. The witnesses were cross-examined but nothing cogent was elicited to discredit their evidence. P.W. 6 is Doctor who examined P.W. 3 on 23-1-1978 at 12.15 p.m. and found two injuries on the neck of the informant, P.W. 3. Both the injuries were caused by sharp-cutting weapon. However, injury No. 1 was found grievous and dangerous to life. Another injury was found 1/2" below injury No. 1. It was found to be simple in nature. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that P.W. 3 has stated in his evidence that only the Pasuli blow was given. The Doctor has found two injuries on the neck which falsified the prosecution case. 7. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that injury No. 2 is 1/2" below injury No. 1 and it is simple in nature. At the time of occurrence, the injured cannot be expected to give details of the injury caused. Moreover, the allegation is that injuries were caused by Pasuli which is sharp-cutting weapon. In course of such assault, it is possible that injury No. 2 may cause. Therefore, on this count, in my opinion, prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Moreover, evidence of P.W. 3, except as stated above, is consistent With the allegation made in the fardbeyan. The evidence of P.W. 3 has also been supported by P.Ws. 4 & 5. P.Ws. In course of such assault, it is possible that injury No. 2 may cause. Therefore, on this count, in my opinion, prosecution case cannot be thrown out. Moreover, evidence of P.W. 3, except as stated above, is consistent With the allegation made in the fardbeyan. The evidence of P.W. 3 has also been supported by P.Ws. 4 & 5. P.Ws. 4 85 5 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence but they have claimed that they went to the place of occurrence after hearing alarm and saw the appellants running away. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 3 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 4 & 5. 8. Therefore, on consideration I do not find anything wrong in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. However, learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that allegation of assault by Pasuli is only against appellant No. 1 Laxmi Pasi. So far as, appellant No. 2 is concerned, there is no allegation of assault. Appellant No. 3 is alleged to have pushed but there is no allegation that P.W. 3 fell down or received any injury. In that view of the matter, the sentence awarded to them is severe. It is true that against appellant Nos. 2 & 3 except as stated above no overt act has been alleged. Appellant No. 1 is certainly responsible for giving blow on the neck of the informant. Therefore, from the acts done it cannot be said with great certainty that appellant Nos. 2 & 3 also shared the common intention. The allegation of theft is against appellant No. 2. It has been alleged that the box containing Rs. 50.00 was taken away by him. Since I have come to the conclusion that these two appellants cannot be said to have shared common intention, I am of the view that their sentences should be reduced. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the State that they have remained in jail for about fortnight. Therefore, their sentence is, reduced to the period already undergone. However, they are awarded to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each. In default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for two months. So far as, appellant No. 1 is concerned, I am of the view that there is no need of interference. 9. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with modification as indicated above.