JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.6.1982 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar acquitting accused-respondent herein of offence under Secs. 307, 307/34, 326 & 324/34 and 323/34 IPC. 2. The briefly stated prosecution case is that on 17.10.1979 at 1.30 AM Baldeo Singh lodged a F.I.R. at police station Anoopgarh, stating inter alia, that there was a land dispute between his father and accused Pyara Singh etc. In pursuance of the judgment of the court, Naib Tehsildar delivered possession of the disputed land to him on 16.10.1979. In the intervening night of 16-17 October, 1979 while he was returning from the cinema and when he reached near bush of "Ker" the accused persons namely Makhan Singh, Karnail Singh & Pyara Singh came out from the bush and attacked on him. Karnail Singh was armed with Gandasi, Makhan Singh and Pyara Singh were also carrying Gandasi, the fourth man was armed with a lathi. They surrounded him and gave a Gandasi blow on his head, on account of which, he fell down. After he had fallen on the ground, the accused persons continued to give Gandasi and lathi blows on him, on account of which, he sustained injuries on head, neck and hand. The accused persons thinking him dead left the place. After some time, he got up and went to the house. His aunties Dhan Kaur and Gurmit Kaur attended him and reported the matter to their neighbour Shinghara Singh. On this information, police registered a case under Secs. 307, 326/34 IPC and proceeded with investigation. 3. The police laid charge-sheet against the respondents herein for offence under Secs. 307, 326 and 324/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in its support examined as many as eight witnesses and produced number of documents. In statement under 313 Cr.RC. the accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of the land dispute. 4. PW. 1 Mahant Tiwari stated that there was a dispute between Shingara Singh and Pyara Singh pertaining to Murabha No. 316/420 Chuck No. 4A which was decided in favour of Shingara Singh vide judgment Exl. He also stated that the possession of disputed land was taken from Ujagar Singh, Pyara Singh, Makhan Singh, Ram Kishan & Baldeo Singh on 31st May, 1979. However, "Dhani" remained in their possession which they promised to vacate by 15.6.1979. He also stated that the possession of disputed land was taken from Ujagar Singh, Pyara Singh, Makhan Singh, Ram Kishan & Baldeo Singh on 31st May, 1979. However, "Dhani" remained in their possession which they promised to vacate by 15.6.1979. Accordingly, the possession was delivered to Shinghara Singh on 16.10.1979. PW/6 Dr. Dev Raj Sharma stated that he examined Baldeo Singh on 17.10.1979, and prepared the injury report exhibit 5. dd He found the following injuries on the person of the injured Baldeo Singh- 1. Incised wound 4"x 3/4" x 3/4" on the front of right palm running from proximal end of matacarpal of right thumb through front of palm towards medical border upto centre of metacarpal of little finger. 2. One abrasion of size 3/4" x 3/4" transverse on medical side of right wrist. 3. One abrasion 1/2" x ⅛" vertical on 3/4" above injury no. 2. 4. One incised wound 21/4M x 1/2" x 1/4" vertical on dorsal aspect of right little finger from centre of matacarpol to proximal phalanx. 5. Incised wound 1/2"x 1/2"x 1/4" transverse on exterior surface of right fore-arm 51/2" from lower end of ulna. 6. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" on the dorsum of left hand from centre of wrist joint upto centre of matacarpol of middle finger. 7. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 11/4" on dorsum of left hand from medial side connecting with injury no : 6 towards 1/2" below the border of molex finger and thumb. 8. Incised wound 33/4 'x 1" x 1/2" on 11/2" proximal from dorsal aspect of left wrist joint towards dorsum of hand connecting injury no : 7. 9. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" on dorsal aspect of left little finger on middle 1 inter-phalangeal joint. 10. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" on dorsal aspect of left ring finger on middle inter-phalangeal joint. 11. Incised wound 13/4" x 3/4" x 1/4" on exterior surface of left 5 fore-arm 3/4" proximal to distal end of left radius running upwards and medially. 12. Incised wound 13/4" x 1/2" x 1/4" on exterior surface of left fore-arm 1/2" distal to centre of injury no. 11 towards medial side and transverse. i 13. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on lateral aspect of left area 4" from top to left shoulder joint. 14. Abrasion 1/2"x 1/4" on middle of left clevical. 15. 12. Incised wound 13/4" x 1/2" x 1/4" on exterior surface of left fore-arm 1/2" distal to centre of injury no. 11 towards medial side and transverse. i 13. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" on lateral aspect of left area 4" from top to left shoulder joint. 14. Abrasion 1/2"x 1/4" on middle of left clevical. 15. Incised wound 3"x 1/2"x 1/2" on temporal region left side upwards and posterior 1/2" above the left ear. i 16. Incised wound 21/4"x 1/4" x 1/2" on left paritoccipital region vertical 1/2" from upper end of injury no : 15. 17. incised wound 21/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" in occipital region. 18. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" oblique on inforlateral aspect of occuptial region left medial border is in connection with injury no : 2 17. 19. Incised wound 23/4" x 1/2"x1/12" on left side of occipital region 1" below injury No.: 17. 20. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on back of neck lower end is 13/4" from transverse process of 7th carvical vertebra. 2 21. Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" oblique on left side of centre of neck. Out of 21 injuries, 14 injuries were found to have been caused by the sharp edged weapons. He referred the injuries to the Radiologist for the X-Ray. On receiving X-Ray Report Exhibit P-6, he found injuries No : 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 19 grievous. He also opined that no single injury was sufficient to 3 cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but all the injuries collectively were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of Baldeo Singh. He also stated that the condition on Baldeo Singh was serious therefore, after giving the first-aid, he referred him to the Ganganagar hospital. PW 8 Dr. Shankar Lal Kaushik proved the X-Ray plate Exts. P-17 to P-24. The 3 prosecution examined PW/2 Baldeo Singh, PW/4 Joginder Kaur and PW/5 Mito as eye-witnesses. The learned Trial-Judge rejected the testimony of Joginder Kaur PW/4 and Mito PW/5 on the ground, that they could not have gone to the cinema without permission of their parents and therefore, their presence on the spot is doubtful. P-17 to P-24. The 3 prosecution examined PW/2 Baldeo Singh, PW/4 Joginder Kaur and PW/5 Mito as eye-witnesses. The learned Trial-Judge rejected the testimony of Joginder Kaur PW/4 and Mito PW/5 on the ground, that they could not have gone to the cinema without permission of their parents and therefore, their presence on the spot is doubtful. As far as the injured Baldeo Singh PW/2 is ' concerned, the learned judge rejected the testimony on the ground that he falsely implicated Ujagar Singh in as much as, though his name does not find place in the first information report but, ne gave his name while deposing before the court. The another reason given for rejecting the testimony of the witness is that it was a dark night and as such, it was not possible for him to -identify the accused persons. 5. I have scanned the prosecution evidence carefully. PW./2 Baldeo Singh is injured eye witness. He has stated that in the intervening night of 16 and 17th October, 1979 at about 12:30 while he was returning from the cinema, abruptly, accused Makhan Singh came out from the bush and attacked on i him. Makhan Singh, Pyara Singh and Karnail Singh were armed with Gandasi and Ujagar Singh was carrying a danda with him. He also state that Makhan Singh gave a Gandasi blow on his head on acount of which, he fell down. Pyara Singh gave a Gandasi blow on his hand Karnail Singh also inflicted injuries on his back. He also stated that Ujagar Singh gave a lathi blow on him. The criticism against him is that he has improved his statement by introducing Ujagar Singh. In the first information report he gave the names of the three accused persons namely Makhan Singh, Karnail Singh and Pyara Singh. For the fourth accused, he stated that he could not identify him. However, he gave the name of fourth accused as Ujagar Singh before the Police as well as before the Court. Ujagar Singh is none else, but the grandfather of the witness, as such his aunties asked him not to give his name. At the first instance, he might have acceeded to the advice of his aunties, but later on he gave out his name. In my view, conduct of the witness is quite natural. Ujagar Singh is none else, but the grandfather of the witness, as such his aunties asked him not to give his name. At the first instance, he might have acceeded to the advice of his aunties, but later on he gave out his name. In my view, conduct of the witness is quite natural. One may be hesitant at the first instance to implicate a elderly member of the family. The another reason given by the learned judge to disbelieve the statement of PW/2 Baldeo Singh is that, it was dark night as such, it was not possible for him to identify the assailants. The witness was not confronted with this situation. There is not a single question in the cross-examination, as to how could he identify the accused persons inspite of dark night. No further details about the dark night are available. Even in dark night it is not impossile to identify persons who are closely known. The accused persons are close relatives of the victim. Mr. Joshi appearing for the accused respondents herein contended that the learned judge was right in rejecting the testimony of PW/2 for the reason, that he falsely implicated his own grandfather Ujagar Singh, there is no guarantee that he has not falsely implicated the other accused persons. I am unable to agree with the submission made by Mr. Joshi. The name of these three accused persons find place in the first information report lodged with utmost promptitude. The testimony of this witness find corroboration from the evidence eye witnesses PW/4 and PW/5 and medical event on all material particulars. Thus, in my considered view, the learned judge was in error in rejecting the testimony of the injured witness. 6. The statement of injured witness PW/2 Baldeo Singh, eye witnesses PW/4 Joginder Kaur and PW/5 Mito finds corroboration from medical evidence, which have referred in precceding paras. I have also gone through the statement of PW4 Joginder Kaur, she has stated that when she was returning at 12:30 after seeing the cinema, Baldeo Singh was ahead of her, when they reached at some distance Makhan Singh, Karnail Singh, Pyara Singh and Ujagar Singh, attacked on him. She stated that Makhan Singh gave a Gandasi blow on Baldeo Singh's head thereafter, the other accused persons assaulted him. She stated that Makhan Singh gave a Gandasi blow on Baldeo Singh's head thereafter, the other accused persons assaulted him. PW/5 Mito has stated that in the night at about 12, she was returning from the picture hall, Baldeo Singh was ahead of her, accused Pyara Singh, Karnail Singh, Makhan Singh and Ujagar Singh came out of the bush and attacked on Baldeo Singh. Accused Makhan Singh -gave Gandasi blow on the head of Baldeo Singh thereafter, the other accused persons also assaulted him. Seeing the incident, they became frightened and ran away from the site. I have read the cross- examination of both the witnesses, the defence has not been able to elicit anything on the basis of which these two witnesses can be disbelieved. There is nothing on record to say that both the eye witnesses had gone to see movie without permission of their parents. There is no suggestion to these witnesses, if they had gone to the movie without permission of their parents. I fail to understand, even if they had gone to see movie without the permission of their parents, how they could be branded as unreliable witness. The view expressed by the learned judge is obviously erroneous. The injury report indicates that Baldeo Singh was mercilessly beaten. Out of 21 injuries, 14 are caused by sharp edged weapons and 9 injuries are grievous in nature. Thus prosecution has succeeded in establishing that first and second respondent namely Makhan Singh and Pyara Singh along with two other made an attempt to commit murder of Baldeo Singh. In view of this, first and second respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC. The acquittal of Ujagar Singh does not call for interfere. It is informed that he has died during pendency of appeal. 7. In view of this aforesaid, the State appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 10.6.1982 acquitting the accused respondents 1 and 2 of offence under Secs. 307, 307/34 IPC, 324 IPC is quashed and set aside. First respondent Makhan is convicted of offence under Section 307 IPC. Accused Pyara Singh is convicted of offence under Section 307/34 IPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent on the point of sentence. It is contended by Mr. Joshi that the incident is of 1979 and : respondent no. First respondent Makhan is convicted of offence under Section 307 IPC. Accused Pyara Singh is convicted of offence under Section 307/34 IPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent on the point of sentence. It is contended by Mr. Joshi that the incident is of 1979 and : respondent no. 2 Pyara Singh is suffering from T.B. and as such a lenient view in the matter may be taken. It is also submitted, that they have remained in jail for two and half months.Looking to the manner in which the incident has taken place, and particularly the injuries on the person of Baldeo Singh, it is not possible to take : a lenient view to the extent of reducing the sentence to a short period of two and half months already undertaken. Both the respondents namely Makhan Singh and Pyara Singh are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. Each of them shall also deposit compensation of Rs. 5,000 in total, Rs. 10,000 before the Trial Court. Four month time is granted for depositing the said : amount before Trial Court. On depositing the said amount, Trial Court shall pay the entire amount to victim PW/2 Baldeo Singh. In case, the respondents herein fail to deposit the said amount of compensation, they will further undergo an imprisonment of one year.State appeal allowed. *******