AMAR SARAN, J. Since both the aforementioned criminal appeals are connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Shri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 3. These two criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 29-4-1981 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri whereby he has convicted the appellants Rajesh and Sheo Ram (who are appellants in criminal appeal No. 770 of 1981) and Dinesh Chandra, Subhash, Saudan and Ram Bharosey (who are appellants in criminal appeal No. 769 of 1981) to one year R. I. under Section 147 I PC and four years R. I. for the offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The sentences on both the counts were to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case was that when Vinendra Singh, the victim of the incident was returning to the village Nasupur, police station Jasrana on 10-7-1975 at about 12 noon, the six aforementioned accused, who were hiding in the sarkandas growing on the boundary (mend) of the field of Nav Ratan, assaulted Virendra Singh with lathies after shouting that the enemy has arrived and he should be murdered. When Virendra Singh, the injured, fell down, his neck was pressed with lathies by Dinesh and Subhash and Sheoram relieved him of his watch and Rs. 250. On the arrival of the witnesses, i. e. the informant Netra Pal Hira Lal, Maan Singh, Samokhi Lal and Malkhan Singh, the accused ran away. The injured Virendra Singh was taken to Shikohabad hospital, where he was examined. As the police of Shikohabad did not did take down the report, on the next day, the informant Netra Pal sent the report by registered post to S. P. Mainpur and S. H. O. Jasrana. Head Moharrir of police station Jasrana did not take down the report and hence he tried to save the accused and deleted the name of the accused Rajesh and Sheo Ram and even submitted a final report in their case. On 3-4-1976, the final report was accepted. This led to the complainant Netra Pal filing a complaint. After examination of the witnesses under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and 202 Cr. P. C. cognizance was taken also against Rajesh and Sheo Ram. On 3-4-1976, the final report was accepted. This led to the complainant Netra Pal filing a complaint. After examination of the witnesses under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and 202 Cr. P. C. cognizance was taken also against Rajesh and Sheo Ram. Medical examination of the injuries of Virendra Singh was conducted on 10-7-75 at 3. 45 p. m. by Dr. Mohan Lal Agarwal, Superintendent of the hospital at Shikohabad. The following injuries were found on his person: (1) Contusion 3" x 1" with abrasion on the front of neck. (2) Traumatic swelling 5" long round middle of right arm (fracture of humerous bone underlying it.) (3) Abrasion with contusion 3"x 1-1/2" on out and outer surface of right thigh. (4) Abrasion with contusion 3"x 1" on posterios and outer surface of left thigh. (5) Abrasion with contusion 1-1/2"x 1-1/2" on posterior surface of knee joint. (6) Traumatic swelling diffused round left knee joint. (7) Two contusions 4"x 1-1/2" each overlapping each other, vertical on left part back in middle. (8) Contusion 2"x 1" of left shoulder joint. 5. As there were suspected fractures of some injuries, hence x- ray examination was done by P. W. 4 Dr. S. P. Mishra and the numerous bone of the right hand, and the 8th and 9th ribs were found fractured. 6. Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the four appellants in criminal appeal No. 769 of 1981 and against the two appellants in criminal appeal No. 770 of 1981, cognizance was taken by the Court on the basis of the complaint. 7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses. Netra Pal, P. W. 1, who was working in the field nearby and came to the spot on hearing the cries of Virendra Singh and the accused and witnessed the incident. He also took the injured Virendra to Shikohabad hospital. He also claims to have lodged the complaint as the police did not write the name of all the six accused in the FIR. Virendra Singh, P. W. 2 was the injured victim of the assault, who stated that he was returning to Shikohabad when he was assaulted by the six accused, who were hiding. He stated that when he fell down, Dinesh and Subhash were pressing his neck with lathies and Sheo Ram relieved him of his watch and Rs. 250/ -. Virendra Singh, P. W. 2 was the injured victim of the assault, who stated that he was returning to Shikohabad when he was assaulted by the six accused, who were hiding. He stated that when he fell down, Dinesh and Subhash were pressing his neck with lathies and Sheo Ram relieved him of his watch and Rs. 250/ -. He also stated that the other witnesses Malkhan Singh, Heera Lal, Suraj Pal and Maan Singh were not willing to support his case on account of fear of the accused. 8. The role of other two witnesses, P. W. 3 Dr. Mohan Lal Agarwal, who examined the injuries of Virendra and P. W. 4 Dr. S. P. Mishra, who conducted x-ray, have already been described above. 9. The case of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated in the case because before this occurrence murder of Kaptan Singh, who was the cousin of Seoram and Saudan had taken place in which injured Virendra Singh and his nephew Inam Singh were the accused and there was enmity and on that account they have been implicated in this case. 10. Enmity is double edged weapon. If the accused felt that Virendra Singh had wrongly been acquitted in the murder of Kaptan Singh, who according to Virendra Singh, had been acquitted one year prior to incident, that could constitute motive for the appellants to take revenge and to assault Virendra Singh. 11. Be that as it may, there is an injured witness Virendra Singh and as the incident is of broad day light, and there is little reason for Virendra Singh to implicate the wrong persons and leave out the real assailants. His testimony has also been corroborated by the evidence of Netrapal Singh, P. W. 1. It is not very material that the other witnesses who were named in the FIR have not been produced because there is no particular advantage in multiplying the number of witnesses especially when there was an injured witness, and as the quality and not the quantity of witnesses has to be seen. 12. However, there is some reason to doubt the presence of the appellants Rajesh and Sheo Ram. In the first FIR their names were not mentioned. 12. However, there is some reason to doubt the presence of the appellants Rajesh and Sheo Ram. In the first FIR their names were not mentioned. It is another matter that the informant Netrapal has disowned his FIR and said that he was made to append his signature on a blank paper and that the police later on, by manipulation, deleted the names of the appellants Rajesh and Sheo Ram and submitted charge sheet against the other four appellants Dinesh Chandra, Subhash, Saudan and Ram Bharosey. I find it difficult to stomach such a proposition. I also find that there were only nine injuries caused by blunt objects to the injured Virendra Singh and those nine injuries could easily be caused by four appellants Dinesh Chandra, Subhash, Saudan and Ram Bharosey. It is apparent that the witnesses are not coming out with the whole truth and it is for this reason the trial Court has disbelieved the robbery of Rs. 250 and watch from Virendra Singh and acquitted all the accused under Section 392 IPC. 13. Now, I have to consider whether the appellants have rightly been convicted under Section 307 IPC. The medical examination report shows that the injured Virendra Singh has suffered nine injuries. All these injuries were on the middle of right arm, outer surface of right thigh, posterior and outer surface of left thigh, posterior surface of knee joint, left knee joint, vertical on left part back in middle, left shoulder joint and only one contusion 3"x1" with abrasion was found on the front of neck. 14. Per se these injuries could not be considered dangerous to life, nor was there any statement of the P. W. 3, Dr. Mohan Lal Agarwal anywhere that the injuries received by the injured were dangerous to life. 15. It has been held in the case of Rekha Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1968 SCD 208, that for constituting an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC there must be an intention, or knowledge, or the offence must have been committed under such circumstances from which it could be inferred that the assault was committed with the object of murder. There ought also to be a finding of the doctor that the injuries are dangerous to life. There ought also to be a finding of the doctor that the injuries are dangerous to life. Such a finding is conspicuously absent in this case, nor do the circumstances suggest that the injuries were inflicted with the intention or knowledge of committing murder, if death had resulted from the injuries. Also only lathies were used and those too on non-vital parts. Injury No. 1, which was an abrasion with a contusion on the neck has even been described as a simple injury. Significantly, even in his statement Virendra Singh, the injured, has only stated that the accused shouted "dushman Aa Gaya Ghair Lo" and thereafter they started assaulting with lathies. They even had not exhorted that he should be killed. 16. In this view of the matter, conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC also deserves to be set aside. 17. However, as the injured has suffered a fracture of the humerous bone on the right hand and fracture of eighth and ninth rib, at least this much can be inferred that there was a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the injured. Accordingly whilst acquitting the appellants Dinesh. Subhash, Saudan and Ram Bharosey of the charge under Section 307/149 IPC, I, instead convict them under Section 325/34 IPC for having caused grievous hurt to the injured Virendra Singh. As almost 29 years have elapsed after the incident dated 10-7-1975, I think the ends of justice will be met if the sentences awarded to the four appellants under Section 325/34 is reduced to the period already undergone by them and in addition they are awarded a fine of rupees two thousand each, which shall be given to the injured Virendra Singh as compensation. In default of payment of fine, the appellants will undergo three months RI each. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants also states that he will not treat awarding some fine against the appellants Dinesh, Subhash, Saudan and Ram Bharosey as enhancement of sentence in place of a substantive sentence of imprisonment. After deposit of the fine amount the bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. 19. Both the appeals are accordingly partly allowed as above. Appeals partly allowed. .