Honble BANSAL, J.–The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu whereby accused- appellants Hajari, Gopal, Mohan, Ummed Singh and Dharamveer have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer S.I. for one month and to suffer R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer S.I. for four months each respectively. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on on 26.3.1996 `Parcha-bayan Ex.P14 of PW10 Indrapal S/o Harlal Singh, by caste-Jat, aged 32 years, R/o Kithana, P.S. Chidawa was recorded at 11.05 p.m. by PW14 Prahlad Singh, ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu in B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu wherein it was stated by Indrapal that today at about 7.30 p.m. he alongwith Raghuveer was coming to his village Kithana from village Sultana by Jeep No. RJ-18C-1241. He was driving the jeep. When they reached near village Kithana, accused Ummed, Daleep, Dharamveer, Gopal, Mohan and Hajari came in Jeep No. RJ-18C-1177 and stopped their jeep in front of his jeep whereupon he also stopped his jeep. All the accused were armed with sariya (iron-rod) and lathies. Accused Ummed hit his jeep with sariya. Thereafter the accused dragged him out the jeep. Accused Ummed exhorted the remaining accused to kill him whereupon they assaulted him with lathies and iron-rods and caused injuries on his legs and forearms. Subhash. Ashok and Raghuveer intervened and rescued him. Thereafter accused- appellants and Daleep fled away. Raghuveer, Subhash and Ashok took him to Jhunjhunu from the spot and got him admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the `Parcha-Bayan Ex.P14, FIR was registered at P.S. Chidawa and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellants and co-accused Daleep in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chidawa who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. (3). The learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu framed charges under Sections 147 and 307, in the alternate 307/149 IPC against the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Vijendra Singh and PW2 Subhash were examined by the learned Sessions Judge. (3). The learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu framed charges under Sections 147 and 307, in the alternate 307/149 IPC against the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Vijendra Singh and PW2 Subhash were examined by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu. Accused Daleep appeared before the Trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against him under Sections 147 and 307, in the alternate 307/149 IPC which were denied by him and he claimed trial. In all the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove the aforesaid charges. (4). In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellants pleaded innocence and false implication. It was also stated by them that when Indrapal was coming to his village by his jeep he met with an accident and sustained injuries on 26.03.96. In defence four witnesses were examined. As accused Daleep did not appear before the Trial Court after statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., separate file was opened for his trial. (5). The learned Trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated here- in-above. (6). I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and with their assistance scanned and scrutinised the material on record. (7). It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case on accused of previous enmity. As per his contention, PW10 Indrapal met with an accident when he was coming to his village by his jeep and sustained injuries. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged eye-witnesses PW2 Subhash and PW15 Ashok Kumar have not supported the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to being home the charges framed against the appellants. (8). Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the testimony of injured Indrapal finds support from the testimony of Raghuveer Singh who was the eye-witness of the occurrence and the medical evidence and it has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused injuries on the person of Indrapal with iron-rods and lathies. (9). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. (9). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. PW10 Indrapal stated that on 26.03.96 at about 6.00- 7.00 p.m. he along with Raghuveer Singh was returning to his village Kithana by his jeep. he was driving the jeep. When they reached near village Kithana, all the appellants Ummed, Dharamveer, Mohan, Gopal and Hajari along with Daleep came in a jeep belonging to appellant Ummed Singh. Appellant Ummed stopped his jeep in front of his jeep whereupon he also stopped his jeep. The appellants alighted from the jeep, appellant Ummed exhorted the remaining accused to kill him and thereafter all the appellants dragged him out of the jeep and took him to a nearby `Babul tree where he was assaulted and caused injuries by all the appellants with iron-rods and lathies. Indrapal further stated that he shouted for help whereupon Subhash and Ashok came there from PW2 Subhash has not supported the prosecution and as per his statement he had not seen the alleged incident. So far as PW15 Ashok Kumar is concerned, it was deposed by him that Indrapal was assaulted by some persons. On hearing hue and cry he went to the place of occurrence and saw the assailants running from the scene. As per his statement the appellants were not the assailants. It was stated by him that he had seen two jeeps on the spot and Indrapal in injured condition. (10). Thus, both Subhash and Ashok Kumar have said nothing against the appellants but PW3 Raghuveer Singh who was coming with the injured has supported the version of PW10 injured Indrapal. PW3 Raghuveer Singh has deposed that the appellants came in a jeep, stooped the jeep of Indrapal, dragged him out of the jeep, took him to a nearby `Babul tree, assaulted him and caused injuries on his person. The presence of PW3 Raghuveer Singh at the time of the occurrence is not doubtful. That apart, the testimony of PW10 injured Indrapal stands corroborated by the medical evidence also. (11). PW12 Dr. S.C. Vyas stated that on March 26, 1996 at about 2.00 p.m. as Medical Jurist, B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu, he examined Indrapal S/o Harlal, by caste-Jat, R/o Kithana and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) lacerated (punctured) wound 5cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on mid left leg. (2) Lacerated wound 3cm. x 2cm. (11). PW12 Dr. S.C. Vyas stated that on March 26, 1996 at about 2.00 p.m. as Medical Jurist, B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu, he examined Indrapal S/o Harlal, by caste-Jat, R/o Kithana and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) lacerated (punctured) wound 5cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on mid left leg. (2) Lacerated wound 3cm. x 2cm. x bone deep just below injury No. 1. (3) Lacerated wound 3cm. x 2cm. x 1cm. on outer aspect of left ankle. (4) Lacerated (punctured) wound 3cm. x 1-1/2 cm. x 1cm. on outer side of lower 1/3 of left leg. (5) Lacerated wound 5cm. x 2cm. x bone deep on mid front of right leg. (6) Swelling all over the right forearm. (7) Swelling all over the right hand. (8) Swelling all over the left forearm. (9) Swelling all over the left hand. (10) Bruise 6 cm. x 2cm. on upper right shoulder joint. (11) Bruise 10 cm. x 2cm. on left scapular region. (12) Abrasion 1 cm. x 1cm., three in number, intermingled with Bruise 5cm. x 2cm. on mid left scapular region. (13) Swelling on upper lip with dislocation of upper left canine teeth. Dr. Vyas further stated that all the injuries were caused by the blunt weapon. Duration of the injuries was within 12 hours. Except Injuries No. 10 to 12, X-ray was advised. He prepared Injury Report Ex.P23. It was further stated by Dr. Vyas that on X-ray of injured Indrapal he found the fracture of left tibia and fibula, fracture of right ulna, fracture of left ulna and fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand. He prepared X-ray Report Ex.P.22. On X-ray juries No. 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were found grievous in nature. (12). In view of the medical evidence, reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW10 injured Indrapal and PW3 Raghuveer Singh. On close and careful scrutiny of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, I found it cogent and credible. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that injured Indrapal had sustained the injuries in road accident and not in the alleged incident, deserves to be rejected. As stated above, the testimony of injured Indrapal stands corroborated by the testimony of PW3 Raghuveer Singh, the eye-witness and PW12 Dr. S.C. Vyas. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that injured Indrapal had sustained the injuries in road accident and not in the alleged incident, deserves to be rejected. As stated above, the testimony of injured Indrapal stands corroborated by the testimony of PW3 Raghuveer Singh, the eye-witness and PW12 Dr. S.C. Vyas. Even PW15 Ashok Kumar who has turned hostile to help the appellants has admitted that injured Indrapal was assaulted and caused injuries by some persons. It has also been stated by him that on hearing hue and cry he went to the spot and found two jeeps there and saw the assailants running from the scene after having assaulted PW10 injured Indrapal. He further stated that assailants were armed with iron-rods and lathies and Indrapal was lying unconscious on the spot. Thus, the testimony of PW15 Ashok Kumar also proves that PW10 Indrapal had not sustained injuries in road accident but he suffered these injuries in the alleged occurrence. So far as the evidence adduced in defence regarding the presence of appellants Dharamveer and Ummed at the place other than the place of alleged crime at the time of the alleged occurrence is concerned, the Trial Court has not placed reliance on it. Having perused the defence evidence, I have come to the conclusion that it is not trustworthy. (13). Thus, in my considered view also, the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that after having formed unlawful assembly with the common object to assault Indrapal, the appellants came in a jeep when Indrapal was returning to his village by his jeep, dragged him out of his jeep and inflicted the aforesaid injures on his person with iron-roads and lathies. (14). It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that no offence under Section 307/149 IPC is made out against the appellants and the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting them. Learned counsel further contended that all the injuries sustained by injured Indrapal were on non-vital part part of his body and it has been stated by Dr. Vyas that none of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no intention of the appellants to cause the death of Indrapal. (15). Vyas that none of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no intention of the appellants to cause the death of Indrapal. (15). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complaint party submitted that in the alleged incident PW10 Indrapal sustained 13 injuries including five fractures of bones. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellants of causing death of PW10 Indrapal. Reliance has been placed on R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2004 (2) SC 348. (16). I have considered the rival submissions. All the injuries sustained by PW10 Indrapal were on non-vital part of his body. The appellants were armed with iron-rods and lathies but they caused no injury on the head and any other vital part of the body. This fact shows that the appellants had no intention to cause death or to cause such injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Indrapal. As stated above, Dr. Vyas has opined that none of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has been stated by PW10 Indrapal that appellant Ummed exhorted the remaining appellants to cause his death and on his exhortation the remaining appellant as also appellant Ummed assaulted and caused injuries on his person. But PW3 Raghuveer Singh has not stated that before assault appellant Ummed had exhorted the remaining appellants to kill PW10 Indrapal and, therefore, this part of the testimony of PW10 Indrapal is not credible. The decision cited by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the complainant party does not help the prosecution as the facts of the instant case are quite different from the facts of the case of R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka (supra). In R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka (supra), one of the injuries was on temporal region of the injured and the appellant continued to assault the injured even after the intervention of the eye- witnesses to save him, but in the instant case none of the injuries is on vital part and PW3 Raghuveer Singh and PW10 Indrapal have not stated that the appellants continued to assault him (Indrapal) even after Raghuveer Singh tried to intervene to save Indrapal. (17). (17). For the aforesaid reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has filed to prove the charge under Section 307/149 IPC against the appellants and they are held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 IPC. Having formed the unlawful assembly with common object to assault Indrapal, the appellants came together in a jeep, dragged Indrapal out of his jeep and took him to a nearby `Babul tree and caused injuries on non-vital part on his person. Therefore, their conviction under Section 147 IPC deserves to be confirmed. (18). Consequently, the appeal of accused-appellants Hajari, Gopal, Mohan, Ummed Singh and Dharamveer is partly allowed and they are acquitted of the charge under Section 307/149 IPC. Instead they are convicted under Sections 325/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and S.I. for one year each respectively. Their conviction and sentence under Section 147 IPC is confirmed. All the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. The appellants have remained in custody for more than years. On payment of fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) by each of the appellants, they shall be released from the Jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Registry is directed to send the amended warrant of sentence to the Jail authorities concerned.