S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment rendered in Sessions Trial No. 323/02 dated 24/2/2003, thereby finding appellant No. 1 Makbool guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2 Yusuf and appellant No. 3 Mohd. Aslam uncle of the offence under Sections 307/34. Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 7,000. 00 (Rupees seven thousand only), in default of payment of fine to suffer 1 year R. I. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case stated in brief before the trial Court is that on 6th August, 2002 at about 8. 00 a. m. appellant Makbool alongwith his two companions went to the house of complainant Nahru and asked him to come out. As soon as complainant Nahru came out of his house, accused Makbool asked his companions to finish him and dealt knife blow on chest of the complainant and the second blow was given on his arm. The companions of the accused Makbool also dealt knife blows on his right arm. On shout being raised by Nahru his wife and neighbours gathered. On seeing them accused persons ran away from the spot. First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station, Mahankal Unman of the incident. The offence was registered by police Exh. P/9. Accused persons were arrested and usual investigation was completed. ( 3 ) ACCUSED/appellants abjured their guilt and after trial finding them guilty, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. ( 4 ) THE contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the names of appellant No. 2 Yusuf and appellant No. 3 Mohd. Aslam uncle, are not mentioned in the FIR Ex. P/9, lodged by complainant Nahru (PW. 3 ). Nahru (PW. 3) in, his deposition paragraph 6, has specifically stated that he was knowing appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle prior to the date of incident. When the witness confronted with FIR Exh. P/9, he denied the fact mentioned in the FIR and states that he was not knowing the two persons who were accompanying appellant Makbool, but knowing them by face. He also denied the fact mentioned in the FIR Exh. P/9 that two unknown persons were present. In Exh. When the witness confronted with FIR Exh. P/9, he denied the fact mentioned in the FIR and states that he was not knowing the two persons who were accompanying appellant Makbool, but knowing them by face. He also denied the fact mentioned in the FIR Exh. P/9 that two unknown persons were present. In Exh. on, case diary statement also he did not mention the name of appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle. Learned counsel further submitted that police arranged Test Indentation Parade of appellant No. 2 Yusuf vide Exh. P III and appellant No. 3 Mohd. Aslam uncle vide Exh. P/12 but both these memos are not helpful to the prosecution because he was knowing them by name since before. Therefore, the evidence of Test Destination Parade, cannot be taken into consideration. On this count, learned counsel prayed for acquittal of appellant No. 2 Yusuf and appellant No. 3 Mohd. Aslam uncle. ( 5 ) AS far appellant No. 1 Makbool, the contention of the counsel is that against him, at the most, offence would fall under section 324, Indian Penal Code. The alleged injury caused by him was simple in nature. The counsel states that he does not wish to press his case on merits but prayed for reduction in sentence. ( 6 ) AS against this, Mr. Mayank Upadhyaya, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, Judgment passed by the trial Court is well within the four corners of law. The counsel further submitted that names of appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle are not mentioned in FIR and case diary statement but they were identified in Test Identification Parade vide Exhs. P/li and P/12 proved by Nahru (PW. 3 ). In the Test Identification Parade both the appellants were rightly identified by complainant Nahru (PW. 3 ). ( 7 ) AFTER perusing entire record. It emerged that names of appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle are not mentioned in the FIR Ex. P 19. In the FIR Ex. P19, injured has mentioned the name of appellant No. 1 Makbool and also mentioned that he was not knowing the name of other two persons. They were unknown to him but he was knowing them by face. Same is the statement Ex. Aslam uncle are not mentioned in the FIR Ex. P 19. In the FIR Ex. P19, injured has mentioned the name of appellant No. 1 Makbool and also mentioned that he was not knowing the name of other two persons. They were unknown to him but he was knowing them by face. Same is the statement Ex. D/1 recorded on 8-3-2002 that is why both appellants were put for Test Identification by Nahru (PW 3) and he identified both the appellants in Test Identification Parade. Unfortunately, Nahru (PW 3) has come in Court with a clean case that on the date of incident, he was knowing appellants Nos. 2 and 3 (Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle) by name and on confrontation, in paragraphs 6 and 7, he has specifically denied that he was not knowing appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle by name. In paragraph 8 he stated that FIR Exh. P i9 was not read over to him prior to obtaining his signatures. In paragraph 9 he has stated that he had disclosed the names of appellants No. 2 and 3 in Exh. P 19. He was also not able to explain as to why he is not mentioned their names in FIR and case diary statement, Exh. D/1. ( 8 ) AFTER cross-examination, in the re-examination, Identification Memo Exh. P/11, P/12 were got proved by complainant Nahru. It is of no avail in view of his positive statement in Court that he was knowing both appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle by names and by face prior to the date of incident and had also disclosed their names to the police while lodging FIR. This positive admission about knowing appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle and missing of their names in FIR as well as in the case diary-statement Exh. D/1 are establishing that complainant is giving false statement on this count. Therefore his version for participation of appellants Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle for assaulting him is not reliable and they are entitled for getting benefit of doubt. ( 9 ) SO far as appellant No. 1 Makbool is concerned there is sufficient evidence against him for his presence arid participation. This Court is to see whether offence under section 307. Indian Penal Code is made out against him or not. In view of the medical evidence given by Dr. ( 9 ) SO far as appellant No. 1 Makbool is concerned there is sufficient evidence against him for his presence arid participation. This Court is to see whether offence under section 307. Indian Penal Code is made out against him or not. In view of the medical evidence given by Dr. Umesh Sharma (PW 13), Injury on the chest was Simple in nature and. It was only clean cut. The other two injuries on right hand and left hand were also simple In nature. In view of statement of Dr. Anil Bhargava (PW. 11), who has proved medical report. Exh. P/i5 given by Dr. K. L. Vinod. ( 10 ) THE version of complainant Nahru (PW 3) in paragraph i of his deposition about causing number of blows by the appellants are also not corroborated by the medical evidence. According to him appellant No. i Makbool, dealt individual blow on his chest and hand. He sustained is all three Injuries are of simple in nature. ( 11 ) IN view of back drop of the prosecution case and nature of injuries, offence at the most would be under section 324. Indian Penal Code against appellant No. 1 Makbool. Learned counsel for the appellants has also not pressing the case of appellant No. i on merits. According to him, the appellant No. 1 is the first offender and is in jail during the course of trial from 12/6/2002 to 12/10/2002 and remained in jail from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment i. e. 24/2/2003, in total he has suffered uptill now 7 months and 12 days imprisonment. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove Positive motive for the incident and there is no allegation of involvement of appellant Makbool is criminal case. Appellant Makbool comes from middle class family and is a businessman. There is no possibility of repetition of offence. His family is depending upon his earning and because or his incarceration his whole family is facing untold difficulties. On all these grounds counsel for appellants prayed that appellant No. 1 Makbool be awarded sentence to the period already undergone with reasonable enhancement of fine amount. ( 12 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussions appeal of appellants is allowed in part. Appellants No. 2, and 3 (Yusuf and Mohd. On all these grounds counsel for appellants prayed that appellant No. 1 Makbool be awarded sentence to the period already undergone with reasonable enhancement of fine amount. ( 12 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussions appeal of appellants is allowed in part. Appellants No. 2, and 3 (Yusuf and Mohd. Aslam uncle) are hereby acquitted of the offences with which they are charged and conviction of appellant No. 1 Makbool is set aside under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code and the same is altered into section 324, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is convicted for offence under section 324. Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 2 years. ( 13 ) RECORD of court below be sent back immediately to the trial Court with a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed partly. .