P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS-A1 and A3 in CC No. 10 of 1994 on the file of Additional district and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief judicial Magistrate, Srikakulam, had preferred this Criminal Appeal, aggrieved by judgment dated 8. 9. 1997, wherein the learned Additional District and Sessions judge convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the indian Penal Code (IPC ). ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are as hereunder: (I) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajam, filed the charge-sheet against A1 to A9 in crime No. 30 of 1993, for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of ipc, alleging that the accused having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, attempted to commit murder of the de facto-complainant and his brother. A2-Geddapu Chinnayyatata (died), and A1 and A3 the appellants herein, alone were convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. (II) The accused and the de facto-complainant are the residents of Saradhi and they are also relatives and there are long standing disputes between the accused and the family members of the complainant regarding certain lands. On 30. 4. 1993, the family members of Al attacked the house of the complainant on a false pretext that the de ,facto-complainant informed A4 that he has illicit intimacy with the daughter-in-law of A2. It is also the case of the prosecution that the de facto-complainant was not present in the house and his father informed Al that he will raise a dispute before the elders after return of the defacto- complainant, and since then the accused have been waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the family members of the (de facto-complainant. While so, on 2. 5. 1993 at about 5. While so, on 2. 5. 1993 at about 5. 30 p. m. , while the de facto-complainant and his brother-PW2 were proceeding to the bazaar at Rajam and reached near a tank adjacent to Kurakola street, all the accused who were standing near the shop of one Bammana Chitti, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing the murder of the de facto-complainant and his brother saying that the defacto-complainant and his brother are coming, and that they may be killed by beating, in prosecution of their common object, they picked up casuarina sticks and iron rods from a nearby building, which was under the construction and attacked the de facto-complainant and his brother. Al beat de facto-complainant with casuarina stick on the head, and A3 beat him with a stick on the left shoulder and index finger. When his brother came to his resque, A4 beat him with an iron rod on the left calf muscle and A3 beat him with a casuarina stick on the knees and left forearm, A7 poked him with a casuarina stick on the right palm, and A5 beat him with a casuarina stick on the right forearm, when he tried to escape and was running away, he fell down and at the instigation of a2, A8 and A9 beat him with iron rods on his head and, Al and A6 beat him with casuarina sticks on the head each of them delivering one blow resulting in bleeding injuries. Some persons who were gathered there rescued both the injured and on the strength of a statement given by the de facto-complainant, a case in Crime No. 30 of 1993 was registered and the investigation was taken up. (III) The Medical Officer, who had treated the injured opined that the injuries found on the de facto-complainant are simple and the injuries found on the brother of the de facto- complainant are grievous, and he was not able to move from bed due to the injuries and all the injuries must have been caused by sharp edged weapons and blunt objects. (IV) The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rajam, having been satisfied that one of the offences is exclusively triable by a court of Session committed the case to the Court of Session, Srikakulam and the learned Sessions Judge, after numbering the case as S. C. No. 158 of 1993 made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, rajam. On receipt of the record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajam, on hearing both sides found that the material on record only discloses that the accused have committed offences under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC, and the same does not disclose the ingredients of Section 307 of ipc, and hence, the learned Assistant sessions Judge framed a charge under section 148 of IPC against all the accused, section 324 IPC against A1 and A3, section 326 of IPC against A4, A3, A7, A5, a9, Al and A6, and a charge under sections 324 and 326 IPC read with 149 of ipc against A8. The accused pleaded not guilty and in view of the fact that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was satisfied that the same is not exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the record was transmitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, srikakulam for disposal according to law under Section 228 (l) (a) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C ). On receipt of the record, the same was numbered as C. C. No. 10 of 1994, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief judicial Magistrate, Srikakulam. (V) On behalf of the prosecution, PWs1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs. P. l to P. 9 and Ex. D. 1-Contradiction in 161 Cr. PC statement of PW1. (VI) On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional District and Sessions judge acquitted all the other accused, but convicted A1 and A3 only, and after hearing them on quantum of sentence to be imposed, ultimately imposed sentence on both the Appellants-A1 and A3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 ipc. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 ipc. ( 3 ) SRI D. Ramalinga Swamy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, and also pw8 and would contend that the casuarina sticks or the iron rods, at any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be sharp edged weapons. The learned Counsel also pointed out Exs. P. 6 and P. 7-wound certificates of pwsl and 2, which were issued by PW8, and commented that even the doctor is an interested witness, and there are several inherent improbabilities in the version of pwsl and 2. The learned Counsel also would contend that when the charge is one of unlawful assembly and attributing overt acts to the accused, when the learned Judge had disbelieved the evidence, and recorded acquittal as against the other accused unless the evidence is so clear as against the appellants, the appellants definitely cannot be convicted and the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants also. The learned Counsel also would submit that except the evidence of PWsl and 2, the brothers, who are alleged to have received injuries during the incident on the fateful day, there is no other evidence available on record worth mentioning. The learned counsel also pointed out the evidence of PW1 in his cross-examination, wherein pw1 admitted that his father worked as n. M. A. under Dr. Kurminaidu at Pogiri hospital. It is needless to say that the said dr. Kurminaidu is examined as PW8, who is the doctor in the present case. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned additional Public Prosecutor would contend that merely because the other accused were acquitted, it would not automatically enure the benefit of the Appellants-Al and A3, and the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is clear and categorical as far as the overt acts attributed to these accused and the same is well corroborated by the evidence of pw8. 1 and 2 is clear and categorical as far as the overt acts attributed to these accused and the same is well corroborated by the evidence of pw8. The learned Counsel had also taken this Court to the detailed discussion of the learned Judge commencing from paragraphs 15 to 30, and would submit that all the aspects were taken into consideration, and hence, the total denial of the accused to the effect that they were falsely implicated in illegal case cannot be believed, and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge may have to be confirmed, ( 5 ) IN view of the fact that the assistant Sessions Judge, in the present case having been satisfied that the case is not exclusively triable by a Court of Session and transmitted the record to the Chief judicial Magistrate for disposal according to law under Section 228 (l) (a) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, as required by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel sri Padmanabha Reddy, assisted the Court. The learned Senior Counsel had taken this court through Sections 228 and 398 of cr. P. C and had explained the object why such a specific provision was introduced, by virtue of which, the matter is being transmitted, in such cases, to be tried by the chief Judicial Magistrate alone. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to Section 209 of Cr. P. C and would contend that inasmuch as the learned magistrate after having been satisfied that the matter may have to be committed to a court of Session, would proceed with the committal. The Legislature might have thought that there is no point in sending the matter again to the self-same Magistrate for conducting trial of the case. Except this reason, there may not be any other reason for introducing such provision in section 228 (l) (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The learned Counsel also had given a comparative analysis of section 228 and Section 398 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. Except this reason, there may not be any other reason for introducing such provision in section 228 (l) (a) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973. The learned Counsel also had given a comparative analysis of section 228 and Section 398 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned counsel also had brought to the notice of this Court that at present in several of the districts, the Additional Sessions Judges are the Chief Judicial Magistrates and it s anomalous that even Assistant Session judge who is satisfied that a matter is not exclusively triable by him, can transmit such matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and such cases to be tried by the Chief judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial magistrate alone. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel on record and also the learned Senior Counsel Sri padmanabha Reddy, who had assisted this Court as an amicus curiae as required by this Court. ( 7 ) IN support of the version of the prosecution, nine (9) witnesses were examined, and Exs. P. l to P. 9, Ex. D1-Contradiction in 161 Cr. P. C statement of pw1 were marked. M. Os. l and 2 are the blood stained shirts of PWs. l and PW2. Ex. P. l is the statement of PW1 given to police dated 2. 5. 1993. Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 are the wound certificates of PW1 and PW2 respectively and issued by PW. 8-the doctor, dated 26. 5. 1993. Ex. P. 8 is the First information Report in Crime No. 30 of 1993 of Rajam Police Station. Ex. P. 9 is the sketch relating to the scene of offence prepared by the Head Constable 228. ( 8 ) AT the outset, it can be said that the learned Judge had scanned the evidence and disbelieved the evidence so far as the evidence relates to the other accused, and recorded an acquittal, but, however, convicted the Appellants-A1 and A3 only. In a case of this nature, where overt acts are attributed to specific accused and an unlawful assembly is alleged, evidence may have to be scrutinized, with care and caution. ( 9 ) PW1 deposed that on 2. 5. 1993 at about 5. 00 p. m. , himself and his brother were proceeding for shopping at Rajam. In a case of this nature, where overt acts are attributed to specific accused and an unlawful assembly is alleged, evidence may have to be scrutinized, with care and caution. ( 9 ) PW1 deposed that on 2. 5. 1993 at about 5. 00 p. m. , himself and his brother were proceeding for shopping at Rajam. and when they reached near a Koneru in kurakula Street, all the accused came from the Baddi of Chitti, armed with casuarina poles and iron rods, obstructed them and they picked up the weapons from the construction going on at the Baddi of chitti and then, saying beat these people, and that A1 beat him with a casuarina pole on the left side of his head, A3 beat him with a casuarina stick on his left shoulder, neck and the finger joints of index finger and middle finger of his left hand. He further deposed that when his brother obstructed, Al beat him with the casuarina stick on his head and A3 beat him with a casuarina stick on both his knees and both the elbows. He further deposed that due to profused bleeding from the head injury, he fell down. Ex. P. l is the statement made by him. He was cross-examined at length. PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that his father worked as N. M. A under Dr. Kurminaidu (PW8) at Pogiri hospital. This witness, no doubt, denied that due to enemity, the false case was filed against the accused. PW1 also admitted that he did not mention in his statement before the police under Ex. P. 1 that A3 beat him at the finger joint on his left hand and he does not know whether Al is lorry driver, A3 was working in the steel plant, visakhapatnam, A4 is an electrical lineman, and A6 is the teacher. PW1 also admitted that this is a busy locality and about 50 persons gathered at the scene of offence and he did not state before the police as in Ex. D1, to the effect that many persons who were present at the time of incident interfered, and but for their interfeaence, they would have been killed. PW1 also admitted that this is a busy locality and about 50 persons gathered at the scene of offence and he did not state before the police as in Ex. D1, to the effect that many persons who were present at the time of incident interfered, and but for their interfeaence, they would have been killed. ( 10 ) PW2-ANOTHER injured witness, who is brother of PW1 had deposed that Al beat him with a casuarina pole on the backside of his head and A3 beat him with the casuarina stick on both of his knees and left elbow, A4 beat him with an iron rod on his left calf, A5 beat him with a casuarina stick on his right wrist, A7 beat him with casuarina stick on his right palm. He further deposed that while he was trying to run away, he fell down and then some of the accused beat him on the joints of both the elbows and both the knees, and A3 and A8 accosted the other accused to kill him, and that A9 beat him with an iron rod on his head, Al again beat him with a stick on his head, A6 beat him with a casuarina stick on his head and due to profused bleeding, he fell down and then, N. Kannayya and K. Appalarao, came and sprinkled water on his face and took him to the Police Station. He deposed that he was examined by the police and MO2 is the shirt seized by the police. This witness was cross-examined at length. ( 11 ) PW3 is the father of PWs. 1 and 2 and he only says that he came to know about the incident and that there are certain land disputes between him and the accused. ( 12 ) PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 were declared hostile. ( 13 ) PW8 is the doctor. He deposed that he has been working as Medical Officer, phc, Rajam and on 2-5-1993 he examined pw1 on a requisition of Station House officer, Rajam and found the following injuries:1. An incised wound about 2" x 1/4 x 1/8" is present on the left side of the scalp 2" above the left ear, severe bleeding present. Red in colour. 2. A contusion of about 1" x 1" is present at the base of the left index finger. Red in colour and tender. 3. An incised wound about 2" x 1/4 x 1/8" is present on the left side of the scalp 2" above the left ear, severe bleeding present. Red in colour. 2. A contusion of about 1" x 1" is present at the base of the left index finger. Red in colour and tender. 3. A contusion at the base of the neck 2" x 1" in size and red in colour and tender. 4. Tenderness over the neck. He deposed that Ex. P. 6 is the wound certificate issued by him relating to PW1 and that on the same day at about 6. 40 p. m. , he had examined PW2 and found the following injuries:1. An incised wound of about 41/2" x 1" x 1/2" in size with sharp edges in the middle of the scalp. Severe bleeding present due to rupture of the Arteries. 2. A contusion of about 4" x 1" is present on the left calf muscle extending from the back of the knee joint to the end of calf muscle, red in colour and tender. 3. A contusion of about 3" x 1" is present on the right calf muscle in the middle, red in colour and tender. 4. A contusion of about 2" x 1/2" is present on the right palm. Red in colour and tender. 5. A contusion of about 3" x 1" is present on the left forearm on the back in the middle, red in colour and tender. 6. A contusion of about 4" x 1" is present on the right forearm on the back, red in colour and tender7. An abraded contusion on the right knee of about 2" x 1", red in colour and oozing. 8. An abraded contusion of about 2" x 1" is present on the left knee red in colour and oozing. 9. Multiple abrasions are present on both the elbow joint on the back oozing. P. W. 8 further deposed that Ex. P. 7 is the wound certificate issued by him with regard to the injuries sustained by PW2. PW8 is also of the opinion that Injury No. 1 in Ex. P-7 might have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injuries 2 to 9 might have been caused due to a blunt object. PW8 also deposed that he had not found any fracture in any injury of Ex. PW8 is also of the opinion that Injury No. 1 in Ex. P-7 might have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injuries 2 to 9 might have been caused due to a blunt object. PW8 also deposed that he had not found any fracture in any injury of Ex. P. 7 and injuries 4 to 9 in Ex. P. 7 are possible by a fall on a rough surface and Injuries 1 to 9 in Ex. P. 7 are simple in nature as there is no fracture. PW8 further deposed that he advised PW2 to go to the Head Quarters hospital, but he wanted to take treatment from him only, and right from the beginning, p. W. 2 was conscious and he was talking. PW8 also deposed that it is not true to say that PW2 was not an in-patient in the hospital for a long period. P. W. 8 deposed that an injury with sharp edges can be possible with sharp edged weapons and injury No. l in Ex. P. 7 is also possible by coming in contact with a projected bamboo of the eve of a house. ( 14 ) PW9 is the Investigating Officer, who had spoken about the details of the investigation. PW9 deposed that on 2. 5. 1993 at 6. 00 p. m. , H. C. 288 of Rajam police Station recorded the statement of pw. 1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No. 30 of 1993 of Rajam Police station under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 109 of IPC and issued the First information Reports while sending the original FIR along with the statement to the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam. He further deposed that the Head Constable died on 4. 1. 1994, and that Ex. P. l is the statement recorded by the Head Constable and Ex. P8 is the FIR and that the Head constable sent PWs. 1 and 2 to the hospital for medical examination and treatment, and he recorded the statement of PW1 at the police Station under Section 161 Cr. P. C and that of PW2 at the Government Hospital, rajam and that the Head Constable then proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared Ex. P. 9-rough sketch, and at the scene of offence he also examined PWs. 3 to 6 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr. P. C and that of PW2 at the Government Hospital, rajam and that the Head Constable then proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared Ex. P. 9-rough sketch, and at the scene of offence he also examined PWs. 3 to 6 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr. PC and on 4. 5. 1993 he had taken up the investigation. He further deposed that on 4. 5. 1993 at 6. 00 p. m. , he verified the investigation made by the Head constable and found the same to be on correct lines and arrested A2, A7 and A9 near Z. P. H. School, Rajam on the same day and on the next day, he sent them for remand and that on 6. 5. 1993 at 8. 00 p. m, he arrested A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A. 8 near Saradhi Village and sent them for remand on the next day. He further deposed that on 7. 5. 1993, he examined PW7 and recorded his statement under Section 161 cr. P. C and he stated before him as in Ex. P. 5. ( 15 ) AS spoken by the Investigating officer (PW9), the Head Constable who had recorded certain statements died. Exs. P. 2 to P. 5 are the portions of the statements recorded by the Head Constable relating to pws. 4 to 7. Except the evidence of the injured witnesses PW1 and PW2-the brothers, there is no other evidence available on record, except the other medical evidence of PW 8-doctor, in the light of the medical evidence that the injuries specified could have been caused by sharp edged weapons, and such weapons were not used, but only blunt objects or the weapons like iron rods and casuarina poles were used. ( 16 ) IT is also pertinent to note that it is a case of unlawful assembly, apart from the other charges. Specific overt acts had been spoken by PW2 as against several of the accused, and the reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge in disbelieving the evidence, and giving benefit of doubt to all the other accused, except Ex. A. l and a. 3. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of pws. Specific overt acts had been spoken by PW2 as against several of the accused, and the reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge in disbelieving the evidence, and giving benefit of doubt to all the other accused, except Ex. A. l and a. 3. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of pws. 1 and 2 coupled with the admission made by PW1 in relation to the interested witness-PW8 doctor, definitely it cannot be said that the medical evidence is corroborative of the inconsistent evidence of the injured witnesses PWs. l and 2 who are just brothers. It is also pertinent to note that in such a busy locality, where several people gathered, none were examined by the prosecution. Evidently, several other witnesses had turned hostile. ( 17 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, especially in the light of the fact that on the self same evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, when the learned Judge had disbelieved the prosecution version as against all the other accused inasmuch as the evidence is not so clear and convincing as against Al and A3-the appellants herein, the conviction cannot be sustained. It is needless to say that the sentence imposed in pursuance of the conviction also, cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same are hereby set aside and the appellants-accused are entitled for an acquittal. ( 18 ) BEFORE parting with the case, it is pertinent to note that this is a case where the assistant Sessions Judge, after being satisfied that the matter is not exclusively triable by a court of Session, transmitted the record to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for disposal according to law under Section 228 (l) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 228 of the Code of Criminal procedure Code deals with framing of charge under Section 228 (l) (a) reads as hereunder: (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report: section 209 of the said Act dealing with commitment of case to Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by it, reads as hereunder: 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it: when in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall (A) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made; (B) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of the trial; (C) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (D) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of session. Section 398 of the Act dealing with power to order inquiry, reads as hereunder: section 398: Power to order inquiry : On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or subsection (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made. ( 19 ) IT is brought to my notice that in several of the districts, the Additional sessions Court is the Chief Judicial magistrate and not only the Court of Session or the Additional Sessions Court, the Chief judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions court, but also the concerned Assistant sessions Judge, if satisfied that the matter is not exclusively triable by a Court of session, can frame the charge and transmit the matter to be tried by the Chief Judicial magistrate, by virtue of Section 228 (l) (a) cr. P. C. Section 228 (l) (a) appears to be imperative and mandatory since the words are "and thereupon the Chief Judicial magistrate shall try the offences in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report:" It is brought to my notice that except for the fact that a committal Magistrate at a particular point of time would be satisfied that it is a case exclusively triable by a court of Session, there is no other reason for making such an imperative provision as specified in Section 228 (l) (a), wherein the chief Judicial Magistrate and Chief Judicial magistrate alone should try such cases, which otherwise in normal course they would be triable by the other Subordinate Criminal courts, as the case may be. ( 20 ) IT is also pertinent to note that as against the judgment made by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, necessarily an appeal would lie only to the High Court. Thus, in cases of a conviction where otherwise the appeal may lie to the Court of Session, the accused have no such right of preferring an appeal to the Court of session. ( 21 ) THE language employed in section 398 Cr. PC that on examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the high Court or the Sessions Court may direct the Judicial. Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrate subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint, would suggest that the language is not mandatory or imperative and the discretion can be exercised in the case of such matters. Such discretion is not provided for in the case of a matter of this nature, which would be transmitted to the concerned Chief judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial magistrate alone shall try such an offence in accordance with the procedure, for the trial of the warrant cases instituted on a police report. Such discretion is not provided for in the case of a matter of this nature, which would be transmitted to the concerned Chief judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial magistrate alone shall try such an offence in accordance with the procedure, for the trial of the warrant cases instituted on a police report. Merely because at a particular point of time, the learned Committal magistrate would have been satisfied that it is a fit case to be committed to the Court of Session, that by itself, may not be a ground to take away of the discretion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercising powers or making over the case to the concerned Subordinate Criminal Courts, and the use of imperative language putting burden on the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try such cases, which are otherwise triable by the Subordinate Criminal Courts, would not be just. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion, that suitable amendments in this regard may have to be brought into Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. This being a central legislation, it is made clear that the concerned may take appropriate steps in this regard. It is needless to say that even the State Government may bring any suitable amendments, after taking into consideration the views expressed by this Court supra. ( 22 ) IN the result, the conviction and the sentence dated 8-9-1997 in CC No. 10 of 1994 imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, under section 324 of IPC against the Appellants a1 and A3, are hereby set aside and the criminal appeal is hereby allowed.