MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. This criminal appeal by two accused Mewa Ram and Balak Ram is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-12-1980 passed by Sri D. D. Srivastava, the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur whereby he convicted both the accused under Section 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. In brief, the prosecution story was as under. 3. P. W. 3 Ram Shanker, son of Dharam Singh, handed over a written report at police station Tilhar (Shahjahanpur) and lodged a F. I. R. on 30-8-79 at 8. 45 p. m. The informant alleged in his report that about three and half years ago, he, his brother Shyam Lal and one Sher Singh were assaulted by Balak Ram, Data Ram and six others with lathies, kanta and spear in connection with damaging of Merh. A F. I. R. was lodged by Shyam Lal, Mewa Ram and others faced trial in the Court, which ended in acquittal. 4. On account of aforesaid litigation and enmity, the accused wanted to cause harm to the informant. On 30-8-79, at about 4. 00 p. m. informants brother Shyam Lal was cutting grass in his plot situated towards south-west of the village. The co-villagers Prem Raj and Narsingh were also cutting grass in the neighbourhood towards south. All of a sudden, four assailants, namely, Mewa Ram armed with kanta, Balak Ram armed with a lathi, Data Ram and Mahabir, who were having guns and rifle in their hands respectively appeared there from the Bajra field. Accused Data Ram and Mahabir used abusive language to Shyam Lal and exhorted to kill him. On their exhortation, Mewa Ram and Balam Ram used their weapons and assaulted Shyam Lal mercilessly. On hue and cry raised by Shyam Lal, Prem Raj, Narsingh and others arrived there, saw the incident and intervened. After causing several injuries, the assailants ran away towards south of the village. Ram Shanker got a report prepared. He arranged a bullock-cart and took his injured brother to the police station and handed over his report. He alleged that the assailants intended to commit murder of his brother. 5. After registration of the case at the police station at crime No. 344, the local police sent the injured to P. H. C. , Tilhar were Dr. He arranged a bullock-cart and took his injured brother to the police station and handed over his report. He alleged that the assailants intended to commit murder of his brother. 5. After registration of the case at the police station at crime No. 344, the local police sent the injured to P. H. C. , Tilhar were Dr. A. K. Bapna, Medical Officer examined the injuries on 30-8-79 at 10. 00 p. m. 6. Dr. Bapna found as many as twenty-one injuries on the person of Shyam Lal, including two incised wounds. All the injuries were fresh and were caused by blunt object except injuries No. 6 and 7, which were caused by sharp edged weapon. He referred the injured to District Hospital for X-ray and better treatment. 7. On X-ray, fracture of both left radius and ulna bones were detected. 8. The case was investigated as usual by S. I. J. P. Singh. He interrogated the witnesses and after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the four assailants. 9. Accused Data Ram and Mahabir were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Accused Mewa Ram and Balak Ram were charged under Section 307 I. P. C. on 7-10-80. All the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. During trial, the prosecution produced five witnesses in the witness box, including the Medical Officers, who examined the injuries and did X-ray. 11. Accused Mewa Ram and Balak Ram admitted that the case arising out of the F. I. R. lodged by Shyam Lal ended in acquittal. They totally denied all the accusations levelled by the prosecution and pleaded their false implication on account of enmity. No evidence was led in defence. 12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record led by the prosecution, learned Judge found Mewa Ram and Balak Ram guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. Accused Mahabir and Data Ram were not found guilty and were acquitted of the charge. Hence this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length, learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record carefully. 13. Accused Mahabir and Data Ram were not found guilty and were acquitted of the charge. Hence this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length, learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record carefully. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment under appeal mainly on the grounds that two accused Mahabir and Data Ram, who were armed with gun and rifle respectively were given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial Judge. It was urged that Data Ram and Mahabir used abusive language and exhorted others to kill Shyam Lal and thereupon Mewa Ram and Balak Ram assaulted Shyam Lal with lathies and kanta. Since accused Mahabir and Data Ram were acquitted and they had exhorted to kill Shyam Lal, it can be easily inferred that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to kill the informants brother on the impugned date. He further drew my attention to the fact that all injuries were found to be simple and caused by blunt object except injuries No. 6 and 7 which were caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, the offence committed by the appellants does not come within the ambit of Section 307 I. P. C. and the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 I. P. C. According to him, the offence committed by the appellants, if any, could not go beyond the mischief of Sections 323 and 325 I. P. C. He further contended that incident in question took place on 30-8-79 and since then more than 24 years have elapsed. Therefore, no purpose will be served by sending the appellants again to jail who have been in jail for about three months. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that P. W. 3 Ram Sanker, the informant, is admittedly not an eye-witness and the learned Judge believing the sole testimony of the injured convicted the appellants. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has urged that both the appellants caused as many as twenty one injuries in all on the person of Shyam Lal, aged about 34 years and made an attempt to commit his murder by giving repeated lathi blows and causing injuries by kanta also. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has urged that both the appellants caused as many as twenty one injuries in all on the person of Shyam Lal, aged about 34 years and made an attempt to commit his murder by giving repeated lathi blows and causing injuries by kanta also. They caused fracture of the left radius and ulna bone as a result of which, the left forearm of Shyam Lal became useless. 15. After having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the material on record, I find that contention of the appellants learned counsel is not well founded and cannot be accepted. As indicated above, the prosecution produced the informant and his brother Shyam Lal only to prove the factum of incident. The Doctors and I. O. were also examined but no independent eye witness was produced in the witness box. P. W. 3 Ram Shanker disclosed in cross-examination in very clear words that he did not see the incident with his own eyes and the details of the incident were narrated to him by his brother and then he got a report prepared. He further gave out that Prem Raj and Narsingh were won-over by the accused and on account of their threat, they were not prepared to depose against the accused. In this view of the matter, non-production of eye witnesses in the witness box is not at all fatal. 16. I find from perusal of the record that incident took place at about 4. 00 p. m. on 30-8-79. A written report was handed over to the police on the same day and a case was registered at 8. 45 p. m. at the police station situate at a distance of four miles from the village in question. On the same day, Shyam Lal was sent to P. H. C. , Tilhar for medical examination of his injuries through a constable and Dr. A. K. Bapna examined his injuries at 10. 00 p. m. Thus, it is very clear that incident was reported to the police promptly and no delay took place in medical examination of the injuries also which were found to be fresh. 17. Dr. A. K. Bapna examined his injuries at 10. 00 p. m. Thus, it is very clear that incident was reported to the police promptly and no delay took place in medical examination of the injuries also which were found to be fresh. 17. Dr. A. K. Bapna found twenty one injuries in all on the body of Shyam Lal which include four lacerated wounds on the head, three lacerated wounds on the right elbow joint, right hand and back of the chest. There were two incised wounds on the left side of face. Besides, there were contusions, abraded contusion, abraded swelling and multiple contusions in an area of 23 cm x 5 cm on the back of chest. Dr. A. K. Bapna further gave out that injuries were dangerous to life. P. W. 2 Dr. P. S. Verma, Radiologist found fracture of the left radius and ulna bones. 18. Keeping in view the number, nature and seat of injuries as well as weapons used by the assailants for causing the injuries, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the appellants learned counsel that there was no intention on the part of the culprits to cause death of the victim. 19. P. W. 4 Shyam Lal supported the prosecution story in toto and testified that when he was cutting grass in his plot at about 4. 00 p. m. on the date in question, he was assaulted mercilessly by Balak Ram. According to him, Balak Ram gave repeated lathi blows on his head and face and caused several injuries, including fractures of the two bones of his hand. Mewa Ram too gave two blows with his kanta and caused incised wounds on his face. He nowhere stated that fire-arm was used by Data Ram and Mahabir. The injured was cross- examined at length but nothing could be elicited in his cross- examination to discredit his testimony. Shyam Lal totally denied the suggestion of the defence that he was assaulted somewhere in the darkness by unknown assailants and he falsely implicated the appellants on account of old enmity. The injured disclosed in his cross-examination in very clear words that Mewa Ram and Balak Ram used their weapons repeatedly and caused several injuries. The relevant portion of the statement is re-produced below for proper appreciation: "mewa RAM AUR BALAK RAM ANDHADHUNDH LATHI AUR KANTA SE MERE OOPER CHALANA SURU KAR DIYA. The injured disclosed in his cross-examination in very clear words that Mewa Ram and Balak Ram used their weapons repeatedly and caused several injuries. The relevant portion of the statement is re-produced below for proper appreciation: "mewa RAM AUR BALAK RAM ANDHADHUNDH LATHI AUR KANTA SE MERE OOPER CHALANA SURU KAR DIYA. " 20. The aforesaid statement of the injured leaves no room for doubt that the assailants had reached there with a view to teach him a lesson and they clearly intended to commit his murder. It is true that there are minor discrepancies in the testimony of the injured and the I. O. regarding recovery of blood on the spot. It is noteworthy that the incident took place on 30-8-79 and on account of rains the possibility of the blood being washed out by rains, cannot be ruled out. 21. The Apex Court has held in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, 1983 Cri LJ page 331, that it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 22. It is noteworthy that the Apex Court did not approve the finding of the High Court acquitting the accused merely because the injuries inflicted on the victims were in the nature of a simple hurt. 23. It is well-settled that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the instant case, the solitary testimony of the injured finds full corroboration from the medical evidence on record which has been further strengthened by prompt F. I. R. In fact, there was no time at all for the injured or his brother to consult any body before lodging the F. I. R. The appellants were admittedly on inimical terms and had a motive to commit the offence. 24. 24. In view of the above discussion and scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that the learned Judge rightly found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and the conviction of the appellants is liable to be affirmed. The incident took place about twenty five years ago and as such, I am inclined to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellants by the Court below. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. is confirmed. They are, however, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. They are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They shall be taken into custody and sent to Jail to serve out the sentence. Compliance report shall be sent to this Court within a period of eight weeks. Appeal allowed. .