Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 14.2.1992 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1990, holding the accused-appellants guilty of offences under Sections 307/149 IPC, 506 IPC, 324/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentencing each of them to R.I. for four years with fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default, 2 years R.I. on first count, 3 years R.I. on the second count and 2 years R.I. on third and fourth counts each. That apart, out of fine recovered from the accused- appellants, victim Naresh was to be paid Rupees 4,000/- whereas victims Bimla and Subhash were to be given Rupees 1,000/- each. 2. Brief facts of the giving rise to the present Criminal Appeal as narrated in para 3 of the impugned judgment on reproduction read as under : "On 13.1.1990 at about 7 p.m. Sh. Jwahar Lal, father, Suraj Bhan, uncle Subhash, brother, and Naresh s/o Ram Chander, nephew of Smt. Bimla and 2/3 children were present in front of the house of Jawahar Lal. They all were celebrating Lohri festival and some woods were also burning for the purpose. Smt. Bimla was also present there as she had come out of their house to distribute Lohri. In the meantime all the 6 (six) accused reached there. Accused Om Parkash was armed with a lathi and the remaining 5 accused were armed with knives. Accused Om Parkash wielded his lathi and aimed to assault Smt. Bimla Smt. Bimla caught the lathi with her hands. Accused Dalip inflicted a knife blow on the left flank of PW Naresh. Accused Daya Chand @ Jai Chand inflicted a knife blow on the left flank of PW Naresh. Accused Rohtash inflicted a knife blow on the right hand forearms of PW Subhash. Accused Mehbu @ Vijay inflicted a knife blow on the right hand fingers of PW Subhash. The accused persons thereafter proclaimed and threatened the injured that they would not spare them in future and thereafter they ran away." 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. for the reasons that the alleged incident took place on 13.1.1990 where as the victims were admitted in the Hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.1.1990. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. for the reasons that the alleged incident took place on 13.1.1990 where as the victims were admitted in the Hospital and the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.1.1990. Learned counsel also submitted that the Police on its own by recording the statement of Bimla registered the case and prior to that, only a Ruqa was sent by Dr. S.C. Mehta (PWA). Learned counsel also submitted that though the accused consisted of 6 members but the total number of injuries located on the bodies of Naresh and other injured prosecution witnesses namely Bimla (PW. 6) and Subhash (PW.7), was only five. Learned counsel also contended that all the injuries except injury No. 1 found on the person of PW Naresh, were simple in nature. That apart, learned counsel also contended that the complainant side while explaining the reasons for delay has stated that they were not contemplating to lodge any report because they wanted to settle the matter between them as both the sides belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community and a dispute over some Dharamsala was the root cause of the fight. Learned counsel referred to testimonies of Dr. S.C. Mehta (PW4) and private Surgeon Dr. M.R. Sapra (PW 8) to contend that injury No. 1 though located on a vital part of the body, was not of such a nature and also does not seem to have been caused in such circumstances which could be covered by the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referred to para 39 of the impugned judgment to submit that the impugned judgment is unimpeachable and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while recording conviction under Section 307 has given cogent reasons to hold that the accused side while causing injuries had an intention to cause death of Naresh Kumar (PW 9) 6. On due consideration of rival contentions and from perusal of the records, it is obvious that the incident took place on 13.1.1990 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 17.1.1990. It appears that pursuant to a Ruqa sent by Dr. On due consideration of rival contentions and from perusal of the records, it is obvious that the incident took place on 13.1.1990 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 17.1.1990. It appears that pursuant to a Ruqa sent by Dr. S.C. Mehta (PWA) the Police on its own recorded the statement of Bimla (PW6), which was treated as an F.I.R. The accused were arrested on 18.1.1990 but the recoveries of weapons of offence from them have been disbelieved. I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of learned trial Judge on the question of disbelieving the recoveries of weapons. As regards appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses, Inspector Randhir Singh (PW.1) was posted as SHO City, Hisar, and he had challaned the accused and filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Inspector Ishwar Dayal (PW.2) was posted as Inspector/SHO Police Station City Hisar on 17.1.1990 on the date when the F.I.R. was lodged. He recorded the F.I.R, Ex PA/l. Dr. Aditya Kumar (PW.3) was posted in Civil Hospital, Hisar on 13.1.1990. He had medically examined Bimla (PW.6), and found the following injuries : "Stab wound 2-1/2 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep going downward anterior over left hip in lower lateral guadrant. Fresh bleeding was present." 7. He has proved the above medical report. On the same day, PW. 3 had also medically examined Subhash (PW7) and found the following injuries on his person : "1. Incised wound (stab wound) 3-1/2 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm deep going latterly over right forearm in upper aspect dorsally. 2. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over left index finger medially. Fresh bleeding present. Advised injury for injury No. 1." 8. He has proved the medical report and in his evidence, he has also mentioned that possibility of injuries being caused with knife on the person of Subhash could not be ruled out. He has clarified that the injuries found on the persons of Bimla (PW. 6) and Subhash (PW.7) could not be by a friendly hand any they are quite deep. Moreover, he has also mentioned that the injuries were located only on non-vital parts of the body. He has also clarified that none of the injured witnesses was admitted in the hospital and it took only half an hour to complete the medical examination of both the injured. Dr. Moreover, he has also mentioned that the injuries were located only on non-vital parts of the body. He has also clarified that none of the injured witnesses was admitted in the hospital and it took only half an hour to complete the medical examination of both the injured. Dr. S.C. Mehta (PW4) was posted as Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Hisar, on 13.1.1990 and he had examined Naresh Kumar (PW. 9). He has noted the following injuries :- "1. Stab wound on right side of abdomen transversally placed on anterior surface 10 cm lateral to midline and 19 cm below right nipple. Fresh bleeding was present. Size of the wound was 3 x 1 x abdomen deep. 2. Incised wound of size 1.5 cm x 5 x 5 cm on right side of abdomen, 7 cm below injury No. 1 and 11 cm lateral to midline. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature and injury No. 1 was kept under observation for the surgeon is opinion." 9. He has proved the injuries report. He has clarified that both the injuries could be the result of knife blows. However, he has also mentioned that injury No. 2 was superficial in nature. This doctor was the first person to inform the Police as is obvious from his statement that the sent the Ruqa (Ex.PE) to the Police regarding admission of PW 9 in the civil hospital but this witness has also mentioned that the injured was conscious and cooperative at he time of admission. 10. ASI Ishwar Dyal (PW5) has mentioned that he was posted at Police Post Civil Hospital, Hisar and he had received the Ruqa (Ex.PE). Hence, he went to Casualty department of the hospital but he could not record the statement of injured because he was declared unfit to make it. Pyare Lal (Uncle of Naresh Kumar (PW. 9), who was attending to him being more worried about treatment also declined to make any statement. This witness again on next day went to the injured and moved an application but by that time PW.9 had already been referred to MCH Rohtak, therefore, the entire documents were sent to Police Station City, Hisar, for further action. Moreover, he has also clarified that he had not examined other two injured witnesses. Smt. Bimla (PW6) is an injured witnesses and she received "astab injury". Moreover, he has also clarified that he had not examined other two injured witnesses. Smt. Bimla (PW6) is an injured witnesses and she received "astab injury". She has stated that on the date of incident, as Lohri festival was being celebrated, she had gone to attend the celebration in her parents house. At that time, all the six accused-appellants being variously aimed with weapons had come there. According to her, appellant Om Parkash was carrying a Lathi and the remaining five accused were armed with knives. She further stated that appellant Om Parkash wielded a Lathi which she caught with her hands. She further more stated that accused Dalip inflicted a knife blow which landed on her right hip. She however clarified that it landed on her left hip. This witness also stated that accused Parkash (appellant No. 1) inflicted a knife blow on left plank of her nephew Naresh (PW9). According to her, appellant Jai Chand @ Daya Chand (appellant No. 5) also caused knife injury on the left plank. She stated that accused Rohtash (appellant No. 2) gave a knife injury to her brother Subhash (PW7) on the right hand whereas Mehbu alias Vijay (appellant No. 6) inflicted knife injury on his right hand fingers. However, she has categorically stated that after inflicting injuries, the accused had shouted that they would not spare the complainant in future and thereafter they ran away. According to her, PW.9 was serious, therefore, the doctors at Hisar advised his shifting to MHC Rohtak. However, before that he was admitted in a private hospital known as Sapra Hospital for treatment and in the meantime, a negotiation for compromise was going on between the parties but instead of recording the compromise the police recorded the statement (Ex P.1). She also mentioned that all the accused-appellants are related to each other. She has further stated that there was a dispute over a Dharamsala between the parties. However, she has also clarified that the doors of the houses of the accused persons do not open in the street where the complainant side was celebrating Lohri festival. She has asserted that all the appellants had assaulted her nephew Naresh (PW.9) and brother PW7 simultaneously. According to her, the attack was so sudden and quick that even elders of her family (father and uncles) could not have occasion to intervene as they were confused and puzzled. She has asserted that all the appellants had assaulted her nephew Naresh (PW.9) and brother PW7 simultaneously. According to her, the attack was so sudden and quick that even elders of her family (father and uncles) could not have occasion to intervene as they were confused and puzzled. Moreover, she has also stated that even after hearing the hue and cry, none of the neighbourers rushed to the spot for rescuing the victims. Naresh (PW.9) and Subhash (PW7) are stated to have collapsed after receiving the injuries. As regards the medical treatment, she has stated that having received medical aid, she and PW.7 were discharged from the hospital just after half an hour and the Medical Officer, Hisar, had advised them to carry injured Naresh Kumar (PW.9) to MHC Rohtak. She has categorically stated that having been discharged from the Hospital, she had not gone to Police Station. However, she has reiterated her statement and clarified that it was not given at the instance of any third person. She has mentioned that after the operation, Naresh Kumar (PW.9) had not regained the consciousness even till the date of lodging the report (Ex. P.1). That apart, she has reiterated that she had not told the Police that the accused persons had threatened her that they would not spare her in future nor had the police recorded her supplementary statement to that effect. She has denied the defence suggestion that due to darkness, the appellants could not have been identified. Another injured witness Subhash (PW.7) has also corroborated PW.6 in material particulars. Rather he has described that the injuries were caused by every member of the accused party. He has also stated that the parties were negotiating compromise between them. He has corroborated the statement that the incident took place when they were celebrating the Lohri festival. Thus this witness too has supported the prosecution case. 11. Dr. M.R. Sapra (PW 8) has stated that after the operation, patient Naresh Kumar (PW.9) was unfit to make a statement as he had been given sedative of Morphine to relieve him from severe pain of major operation. Injured witness Naresh Kumar (PW.9) has given a vivid description of the incident and has corroborated the testimonies of other injured witnesses PW.6 and PW.7. He has stated that the incident took place while they were celebrating the Lohri festival. Injured witness Naresh Kumar (PW.9) has given a vivid description of the incident and has corroborated the testimonies of other injured witnesses PW.6 and PW.7. He has stated that the incident took place while they were celebrating the Lohri festival. The accused persons had all of sudden appeared and started the assault on the complainant party. According to him, the accused had surrounded that from all sides and even on raising alarms, `no member of the locality had come to the spot of incident. Furthermore, according to him, all the accused were armed with knives and caused one injury each which lasted hardly for two minutes. According to this witness, after reaching the Civil Hospital, Hisar, he had become unconscious but when he was referred to MHC Rohtak, he had regained his consciousness by that time. Moreover, he clarified that he was not in a position to recall as to whether he was conscious at the time of admission in the civil hospital. He has denied the defence suggestion that he had received the injuries in darkness from some unidentified persons and he has falsely implicated the accused. Prem Kumar (PW. 10) is witness of recovery and has been declared hostile. ASI Sanwal Singh is an official witness. He is the Investigating Officer. He recorded the statements of Bimla (Ex. PA). He had also prepared the site plan and visited the Civil Hospital on 17.1.1990. He had submitted an application (Ex.PG/2) for opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured witness (PW.9) was in a fit condition to give a statement. He had also visited the place of incident and collected necessary informations and materials during investigations. According to him, all the six accused- appellants had been produced before him by Har Nath son of Mansukh and he had interrogated them in the presence of PW Jawahar Lal and Suraj Bhan. He stated that the said accused-appellants had given the disclosure statements and pursuant thereto, this witness had effected recoveries. He had also seized the blood stained clothes of the injured witnesses and sealed them for sending to the FSL. He stated that the said accused-appellants had given the disclosure statements and pursuant thereto, this witness had effected recoveries. He had also seized the blood stained clothes of the injured witnesses and sealed them for sending to the FSL. According to him, on 19.1.1990, the doctor at MCH Rohtak had given the opinion that injured Naresh Kumar was in a fit condition to make a statement and thereafter he has recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has remained unshaken through out in his statement although he has faced a detailed and lengthy cross examination. PW.12, PW.13 and PW.14 are formal witnesses. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused have pleaded innocence and false implication. 12. Thus, it is evident that the accused-appellants had attacked the complainant side being armed with Lathis and knives and caused injuries to all the three injured witness. The injured witnesses have consistently given the names and roles of the accused appellants in the commission of the offence. That apart, the medical evidence so also the evidence of the Investigating Officer lend complete support to the prosecution case No. 2 doubt the members of the locality did not reach the spot and therefore they have not been examined however it is obvious from the aforesaid evidence that the incident took place all of sudden and was over just-within two minutes, leaving no time for them to rush to the spot. That apart, it is also clear that there was a motive for commission of offence as both the parties belonged to different groups and sub castes of the Scheduled Caste Community and they were also involved in a protracted dispute over a Dharamsala. Hence, to that extent, the findings of learned Addl. Sessions Judge do not suffer from any infirmity and as such it does not call for any interference in the Appeal 13. However, coming to the nature of offence under Section 307/149 IPC, it seems that injured Naresh Kumar (PW.9) suffered only one serious injury and the other injury was found to be simple in nature. Further it appears that all the three injured witnesses have received only five injuries in total. However, coming to the nature of offence under Section 307/149 IPC, it seems that injured Naresh Kumar (PW.9) suffered only one serious injury and the other injury was found to be simple in nature. Further it appears that all the three injured witnesses have received only five injuries in total. This is also stated by the injured witnesses that while inflicting assaults, the accused had proclaimed that in future they would not spare them but had left the spot just after two minutes without any intervention from any outside agency including the members of the family of complainant Bimla. Further, the nature of injury No. 1 caused to Naresh who is stated to have remained admitted in the civil hospital for a month, was only grievous and the second injury on his person was found to be simple. It is evident from the statements of doctors PW.4 and PW.8 that when this witness was admitted in the hospital, he was conscious and cooperative and he was declared unfit to make a statement only after operation as he was administrated Morphine to relieve him from severe pain. Thus, the conviction of the accused persons under Section 307/149 IPC is based on the finding of learned Addl. Sessions Judge that there was an intention to cause death of PW.9. However, it does not appear to be correct. Had there been any intention on the part of the accused-appellants, who were undeterred in their attack, they could have completed their mission and finished the victims, who were unarmed, on the spot itself. Further, had there been any intention, on the spot itself. Further, had there been any intention to cause death, the assailants would have persisted in attack and repeated the assaults whereas according to the prosecution witnesses every member of the accused side had given only one injury each to the injured witnesses. The assailants were six in number and the injuries are only five. Thus the nature of offence at the most would be covered by Sections 326/149 for the simple reason that the accused have used dangerous weapons and injury No. 1 located on the body of Naresh (PW.9) was found to be dangerous to life covered under part Eighth of Section 320 IPC defining "grievous hurt". Thus the nature of offence at the most would be covered by Sections 326/149 for the simple reason that the accused have used dangerous weapons and injury No. 1 located on the body of Naresh (PW.9) was found to be dangerous to life covered under part Eighth of Section 320 IPC defining "grievous hurt". Moreover, no where the doctors in their evidence have stated that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, had it not been timely treated. Thus, to that extent, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence of all the accused persons under Section 307/149 are set-aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 326/149 IPC. As regards conviction under Section 148, 324/149 and 506 IPC, it is obvious from the medical report and also from the statements of the injured witnesses that they sustained incised wounds at the hands of accused-appellants who were carrying weapons like knives and Lathis. That apart, it has also come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused-appellants had threatened the complainant side with dire consequences while leaving the spot. Accordingly, convictions on these counts are hereby maintained. 14. As far as the sentence part is concerned, it is stated that the incident took place way back on 13.1.1990 and by now 15 years have passed further it is evident from the prosecution evidence that the parties were negotiating a compromise and therefore the complainant side was reluctant to lodge an FIR but the police did not agree to that. The third reason which can also act as an mitigating circumstance is that except one injury on the person of Naresh Kumar (PW.9), all other injuries have been found to be simple in nature. It is also obvious that Naresh Kumar (PW.9) had been admitted in hospital in conscious condition and there was no serious complication during his stay in the hospital even in the course of an operation. This is also a submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Jai Chand alias Daya Chand one of the assailants who is alleged to have caused knife injury to Naresh Kumar (PW.9), has so far suffered five months imprisonment and others have undergone about two months of the sentence. 15. This is also a submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Jai Chand alias Daya Chand one of the assailants who is alleged to have caused knife injury to Naresh Kumar (PW.9), has so far suffered five months imprisonment and others have undergone about two months of the sentence. 15. Thus, taking into account the totality of circumstances, the jail sentences as imposed on the accused appellants on various counts, are reduced to sentences already undergone subject to payment of Rupees 10,000/- fine each by Parkash, Rohtash, Om Parkash, Dalip, and Mehbu @ Vijay Kumar and Rupees 7500/- by Jai Chand @ Daya Chand which shall be paid to the injured witnesses under Section 357 Cr.P.C. proportionately inasmuch as 2/3rd of the total fine amount shall go to injured Naresh Kumar (PW.9) and the rest 1/3rd shall be divided half and half between the remaining two injured witnesses namely Bimla and Subhash. It is submitted that the fine amounts imposed by the trial Court have already been deposited. If that is so, the fine amounts already deposited shall be deducted from the fine amounts indicated herein above. The accused- appellants are directed to deposit the fine amounts in the trial Court within two months of receipt of a copy of the judgment and only then their bail bonds shall stand discharged. In case of default in payment of fine, each of the cused-appellants shall undergo two years R.I. under Section 326/149 IPC, one year R.I, under Section 506 IPC, two years R.I. under Section 324/149 IPC and one year R.I. under Section 148 IPC. 16. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds in part as aforesaid.