Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Both these appellants have been heard together as they arise out of same case and are directed against a common judgment by which the two appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 1993, Rama Shankar Mistry and Ram Brikch Mistry and sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1994, Lakhan Mistry have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and one year res- pectively. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Rama Shankar Mistry has been acquitted of charge under Section 307, IPC and other appellants of charge under Section 307/34, IPC for attempting to commit murder of Brij Nandan Mistry, the informant of this case (PW 5) and his brother, Prabhu Mistry (PW 3). The de- ceased in this case is Ram Dahin Mistry, father of the informant and Prabhu Mistry (PW 3) and Girija Mistry (PW 4). 2. As per prosecution case, on 26.1.1991 at 1 p.m. while the informant was sleeping in his house with his family and his two brothers were sleeping in their common house with their family and the deceased was sleeping outside in the verandah along with minor son of the informant, the deceased cried for help and shouted that the three accused were trying to kill him. According to version of the informant in the fardbeyan as soon as he opened the door and came out all the three accused/appellants began to assault him. On hulla, his brother Prabhu Mistry came out of his house. The informant was assaulted with a lathi fitted with farsa on head by Rama Shankar which caused bleeding injury on head. On the orders of accused Lakhan Mistry, accused Ram Brikch Mistry caused a farsa injury on the left side of the body. The informant fell down. Thereafter, all the three accused together assaulted brother of the informant, Prabhu Mistry (PW 3). On this Other brother of the informant, Girija Mistry (PW 4) and female inmates raised hulla and shouted for help of the villagers. On this the accused-persons dragged the dead body of the deceased to a kachha road in front of entrance to the house with a view to behead him but hearing the arrival of villagers, they left the dead body and fled away. On this the accused-persons dragged the dead body of the deceased to a kachha road in front of entrance to the house with a view to behead him but hearing the arrival of villagers, they left the dead body and fled away. According to the fardbeyan, the occurrence was witnessed by members of the family and the informant, his brothers and some villagers including Nageshwar Yadav (PW 1) and Badri Yadav (PW 2). 3. The information of the occurrence, according to the prosecution, was given to the chaukidar in the night itself but he preferred to report to the police station in the morning and on arrival of the police in the village, the fardbeyan was recorded on 27.1.1991 at 7.15 a.m. As per fardbeyan, the motive for the occurrence was the fact that accused-persons are step brother and nephews of the deceased and they were demanding share in 1-1/2 bighas of land which was in the name of the deceased. This dispute had led to holding of Panchayati on several occasions but the Panchayati was unsuccessful. According to the informant, even on 26.1.1991 ie. the date of occurrence some altercation had taken place between the wife of the informant on the one side and two women, namely, Radhia Devi and Balmati Devi belonging to the family of the accused-persons and in that incident Radhia Devi from the family of the accused had sustained some injury in the head. 4. After investigation police submitted charge sheet against all the three named accused-persons/appellants and after cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges were framed against all the three accused-persons under Sections 302/34 and 307/34, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The defence is that the occurrence was caused by unknown assailants and the accused-persons were falsely implicated due to land dispute. 5. The trial Court placed reliance upon five eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Nageshwar Yadav, a neighbour, PW 3 Prabhu Mistry, PW 4 Girija Mistry, both sons of the deceased, PW 5, Brij Nandan Mistry, the informant and son of the deceased and PW 10, Jaimala Devi, wife of the informant/to show that all the three accused-persons were responsible for causing death of deceased Ram Dahin Mistry and also for causing injuries to the informant. The trial Court convicted the appellants accordingly leading to the present appeals. 6. The trial Court convicted the appellants accordingly leading to the present appeals. 6. Besides the aforesaid five eyewitnesses, the prosecution examined five more witnesses out whom PW 2 Badri Yadav, a neighbour, was declared hostile. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW 7 is the doctor who held post- mortem examination of the deceased. PW 8 is another doctor who examined the injuries of the informant and PW 9 is a formal witness of holding of inquest with regard to the deceased. The prosecution also proved Ext. 1 to 6 which include the fardbeyan, seizure list, inquest report, postmortem report and injury report of the informant. 7. On behalf of the appellants no challenge was made to the alleged occurrence in which the deceased received three injuries as found by the doctor (PW 7) and mentioned in postmortem report (Ext. 5) and the informant received two injuries as found by the doctor (PW 8). The enmity between the parties on account of land dispute has also not been disputed rather it has been claimed that the appellants have been falsely implicated pn account of such dispute. The main two contentions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants are (1) the alleged eyewitnesses did not see the assault on the deceased which would be evident from the facts that the fardbeyan is silent as to which the accused assaulted the deceased and also regarding location of injuries caused by particular accused persons and lack of details regarding assault on deceased even in the depositions made in Court by the alleged eye-witnesses. On the basis of such submissions it was argued that there is no reliable material or evidence to connect the appellants with the assault upon the deceased and hence, their conviction under Section 302/34, IPC is fit to be set aside. Secondly and in the alternative it was submitted that even if it is held that the accused-persons/appellants were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased, in the facts and circumstances specially in view of the fact that there were only three injuries on the deceased out of which only one was on a vital portion le. Secondly and in the alternative it was submitted that even if it is held that the accused-persons/appellants were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased, in the facts and circumstances specially in view of the fact that there were only three injuries on the deceased out of which only one was on a vital portion le. on left lateral aspect of upper part of neck extending to left temporal region which was found grievous and dangerous to life but not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, all the three appellants, in absence of any material to show as to who caused the aforesaid injury on vital part, cannot be held sharing the common intention of causing death of the deceased and, therefore, at the most the appellants should be convicted only for offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC. 8. So far as the first contention on behalf of the appellants is concerned, a careful perusal of the fardbeyan as well as evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 10 does not show that these witnesses came at the scene of occurrence when the actual assault on the deceased was almost over but nonetheless they had the occasion and have claimed to have seen the appellants armed with farsa at the place of occurrence where the deceased was assaulted and sustained three injuries all caused by sharp cutting weapon. The presence of the appellants at the relevant time which is about 11 p.m. in the night along with arms and having assaulted the informant (PW 5) is beyond any doubt in view of injuries sustained by the informant. This fact has not been seriously challenged before this Court. The presence of injured witness and also other inmates of the family in their house at the time of the alleged occurrence is quite natural and for an occurrence taking place in the verandah of their house they are natural and competent witnesses. This fact has not been seriously challenged before this Court. The presence of injured witness and also other inmates of the family in their house at the time of the alleged occurrence is quite natural and for an occurrence taking place in the verandah of their house they are natural and competent witnesses. The injuries upon the informant have been described as simple by doctor (PW 8) only because the injuries were found to be stitched by a description of the injuries by PW 4 who is said to have stitched those injuries as he is a village doctor, indicates that the informant had received sharp cutting injuries of 6" length on the mid body portion and 2" length on the forehead which were at the time of stitching of quite serious nature. Hence, the evidence of PW 5, the informant and also of PW 1 an independent neighbour coupled with those of other inmates of the house Le. PWs 3, 4 and 10 clearly established the involvement of these three appellants in the assault over the deceased also which was in point of time immediately prior to assault upon the informant. The evidence of the informant (PW 5), his brother (PW 4) and his wife (PW 10) further shows that the deceased had cried aloud for help and had named these appellants as his assailants. PW 1 is a close neighbour of the deceased and an independent witness and even if his claim that he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased when he reached near darwaza of the deceased is ignored, on account of plea advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that he could not have possibly arrived at the place of occurrence within a short time so as to see the actual occurrence of assault, his further claim that he saw the appellants running away after assaulting the deceased cannot be ignored for any good reason. 9. Thus, the materials on record clearly prove the involvement of the appellants In the assault upon the deceased. The medical report supports the allegation of assault by sharp cutting weapons and the evidence of close relations of the deceased in a case of serious nature deserves reliance in view of large number of decisions which have recognised the dictum that dose relations will not like to spare the real assailants so as to involve others. The medical report supports the allegation of assault by sharp cutting weapons and the evidence of close relations of the deceased in a case of serious nature deserves reliance in view of large number of decisions which have recognised the dictum that dose relations will not like to spare the real assailants so as to involve others. The eye-witnesses account as well as other facts and circumstances as mentioned above leave no doubt that the appellants assaulted the informant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the IPC as rightly held by the trial Court. Further, there is no doubt that the deceased in this case received three sharp cutting incised injuries as a result whereof he died. From the materials on record it is not clear as to which accused caused which particular injury but it is the three accused-persons/appellants who were undoubtedly in one way or the other involved with assault on the deceased in furtherance of their common intention. Thus the first contention on behalf of the appellants is found to be without any substance. 10. This brings me to the second submission noticed earlier which was advanced as an alternative. Since the first contention has not been found acceptable and this Courts finds enough materials to prove involvement of the appellants with the assault upon the deceased, now it has to be seen as to whether the common intention of the appellants was to commit murder of the deceased or was it to commit assault and teach a lesson to the deceased or the informant and other members of their family. At this stage It is relevant to note the injuries found on the deceased The doctor (PW 7) found the following antemortem injuries on the deceased: "(1) Incised wound over left lateral aspect of upper part of neck extending to left temporal region size 3/1/2 x 1/2 bone deep left temporal bone sharply cut. All structure under the wound including muscle blood vessels etc. sharp cut. Margin of the floor of wound having bloods clots. Blood clots present under the brain and meningitis congested. (2) Incised cut of left ring finger at level of 1st and 2nd meta carpel joint. Distal portion missing, margin of wound bruised. (3) Incised wound over lateral aspect of both knee 2/1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 bone deep. Blood clots at flow. Blood clots present under the brain and meningitis congested. (2) Incised cut of left ring finger at level of 1st and 2nd meta carpel joint. Distal portion missing, margin of wound bruised. (3) Incised wound over lateral aspect of both knee 2/1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 bone deep. Blood clots at flow. Injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life caused by sharp weapon. The other two injuries were also caused by sharp weapons. The deceased was 70 years old and in the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock, coma and haemorrhage. 11. As appears from the evidence on record, the prosecution has not given specific detail as to which accused caused the injury on the vital portion which was dangerous to life. The other two injuries have been described as simple and are not on vital parts. Obviously some of the accused either did not assault the deceased or there was no repetition of assault by them. The doctor has not given any opinion as to whether any of the injury in itself was sufficient to cause death in natural course. Although it has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused-persons wanted to behead the deceased but there is no good reason to accept this apprehension or allegation. If the accused had such intention there would have been repetition of blows at least on vital parts of the body. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances learned counsel for the appellants appears justified in placing reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chilamakur Nagireddy V/s. State of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1988, where it was held with regard to some accused-persons in a case of murder that where there are several accused and there is no specific and definite opinion of doctor that injury caused by a particular accused on the person of deceased by itself was fatal or sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death then, since the injury caused by that particular accused was grievous in nature, his conviction under Section 302 could not be sustained and he was found guilty for an offence under Section 326. On similar line is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pashora Singh V/s. State of Punjab. AIR 1993 SC 1256 . On similar line is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pashora Singh V/s. State of Punjab. AIR 1993 SC 1256 . In the later case the accused-persons were found not to have any intention of causing death nor any injury found on deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was not established as to which of the two accused had inflicted injury on the head of the deceased which was described as dangerous to life. In such circumstances the accused were held liable to be convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The question in this case is whether it can be safely inferred that the accused-persons had the intention to cause death. Since the none of the injuries have been found by the doctor to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would not be safe for this Court to form its own opinion as to whether any of the injuries on the deceased, particularly injury No. 1, was such that it would be fatal by itself. Hence, in this case on the basis of nature of injuries it cannot be inferred that the accused-persons had the intention to cause death of the deceased. The other circumstances, as noticed above, are also not of such na ture whereupon it can be safely assumed that they had the common intention of committing death of the deceased or any other member of his family. In fact on account of assault upon the informant, the son of the deceased, the accused have been acquitted of charge under Section 307/34 and convicted only for offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Even the alleged assault on PW 3, another brother of the informant did not cause any such injury which required serious attention. No medical evidence was brought on record to prove his injuries. The nature of the motive allegedthe tendency of a land dispute from long and some altercation between female members of the two families who live in the same house, is not such as can warrant a certain interference that motive would be to eliminate the deceased by causing his death. The nature of the motive allegedthe tendency of a land dispute from long and some altercation between female members of the two families who live in the same house, is not such as can warrant a certain interference that motive would be to eliminate the deceased by causing his death. In the facts of the case, keeping in view even the nature of assault on other family members, the common intention of the accused- persons could have been to teach a lesson to the deceased and his family members by grievous assault with sharp weapon. 13. Considering all the materials on record as well as the circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that all the appellants had the common intention of committing murder of the deceased is not found acceptable and instead it is found that acts done by them in assaulting the deceased can be held to be criminal act done by them in furtherance of common intention of all of them only to cause grievous injuries to the deceased for which they equipped with sharp-cutting weapons. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is set aside and instead they are convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC for their common intention and participation in assault upon the deceased Ram Dahin Mistry. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 324/34 of the IPC for assault upon the informant Brij Nandan Mistry as awarded by the trial Court is upheld. For the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC the appellants are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. These appeals are thus allowed in part as ordered above. Period -of detention shall be set off. P.K.Deb, J. 14 I agree.