( 1 ) THE appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned IVth Addl. Sessions judge, Alot, Distt. Ratlam in the file of S. T. No. 47/1992, dated 23-2-1994, wherein learned Judge has convicted the appellants u/s. 307 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for five years and fine of rs. 1000/- and in default whereof they were further sentenced to undergo RI of two months. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that on 7-11-1991 gangaram (P. W. 9) lodged a report in police station, Alot, that he had old ill-will and enmity with appellant-Bheru S/o nandram and on account of this one day prior to 7-11-1991 there was a quarrel between him and appellant-Bheru. Appellant-Bheru rushed towards him with a sword for assault but complainant-Gangaram ran away. This incident was witnessed by Bheru u/s. Dhulaji (P. W. 4), Shankar s/o Bheru and Mangu s/o Bhuvan. After day's incident in the same night when he (Gangaram P. W. 9) went to answer the call of nature near his house, at that juncture appellant-Bheru s/o nanda, his nephew Mohan s/o Shankar all of a sudden reached over there. Appellant-Bheru was having farsi with wooden handle and Mohan was possessing sword. Bheru assaulted the complainant by hand of farsi on his head and appellant-Mohan dealt sword blow on the back portion of the head. Complainant fell unconscious and after regaining consciousness he came to his house and disclosed about the incident to his mother Shaitanbai (P. W. 11 ). He also disclosed the incident to Ramlal and Onkar. Thereafter they did not proceed to police station in the night because of non-availability of transportation. On the next day morning he lodged the report (Ex. P. 18 ). Police took cognizance and sent Gangaram for medical examination. He was medically examined by Dr. Bherulal Chaturvedi (P. W. 8 ). His report is Ex. P. 11. X-ray plates were proved vide Exs. P. 12 and P. 13. Bed head ticket Ex. P. 14 in continuation up to ex. P. 15. Answer to query proved vide Ex. P. 17. During the course of investigation, police prepared spot map (Ex. P. 19) and effected seizure of blood stained clothes of gangaram through seizure memo (Ex. P. 22 ). After arrest of the appellants in pursuance of the memorandum statement of appellant-Bheru vide Ex. P. 14 in continuation up to ex. P. 15. Answer to query proved vide Ex. P. 17. During the course of investigation, police prepared spot map (Ex. P. 19) and effected seizure of blood stained clothes of gangaram through seizure memo (Ex. P. 22 ). After arrest of the appellants in pursuance of the memorandum statement of appellant-Bheru vide Ex. P. 2 farsi with wooden handle was seized, seizure memo is Ex. P. 5 and on disclosure statement made by appellant-Mohan (Ex. P. 3) sword was seized through seizure memo Ex. P. 4. From the spot blood stained earth and controlled earth were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P. 7 and all seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. Its report is Ex. P. 23 with letter Ex. P. 24. After investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted u/s. 307/34 of the IPC. ( 3 ) THE appellants have abjured their guilt. According to them they were falsely implicated and witnesses were speaking against them because of tutoring by the police. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for appellants has submitted that out of nine injuries only two injuries were serious one and in the opinion of Dr. Bherulal Chaturvedi (P. W. 8), were dangerous to life. Rest all the injures were simple in nature. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the statement of complainant-Gangaram (P. W. 9) material contradictions, omissions and improvements are available, therefore, his statement is not worth for placing reliance and same has also not been corroborated by independent material particulars. Learned counsel has also submitted that appellant No. 1-Bheru is now 60 years of age. He remained in jail for 31 days. Therefore, if he is found guilty he may be sentenced to the period already under gone with reasonable enhancement in fine amount. ( 5 ) IN oppugnation the learned counsel for State has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the trial Court and sub mitted that there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that statement of the complainant-Gangaram inspire confidence. According to this witness, on the date of incident in the noon between 12 and 1 o'clock, both the appellants reached in front of his house with sword to assault him. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that statement of the complainant-Gangaram inspire confidence. According to this witness, on the date of incident in the noon between 12 and 1 o'clock, both the appellants reached in front of his house with sword to assault him. Some how or the other he was saved by son of dulaba residing in village Patan but on the same day night when he was sitting to answer the call of nature on the ground situated near his house the appellant-Mohan having sword and Bheru with dharia and lathi reached over there and both assaulted him by dharia and sword. He fell unconscious on the spot. Both the appellants lifted him to the house of appellant-Bheru and there also assaulted him by lathi. When he was taken to the house of Bheru by the appellants he was in semi-conscious condition but after his beating in the house of Bheru he fell fully unconscious. Appellants went away from the house of appellant-Bheru, thereafter wife of appellant-Bheru made him to drink water. After half an hour he regained consciousness and reached to his house. He disclosed about the incident to his mother shaitanbai (P. W. 11 ). At that time villagers rama, Ranchod and Jujhar also reached at his house and he disclosed the incident to them also. They tried to take him in a bullock cart to the hospital, but appellants were standing on the road, therefore, they did not take him to the hospital in the night and on the next day in the morning they proceeded to Alot in a bullock cart and he lodged the report in the police station vide Ex. P. 18. He has also stated that his clothes were full of blood stain and the same were seized in the hospital by the police. According to this witness appellants were having inimical term with him since last 10 years on account of quarrel between his brother Maadhu and appellant-Bheru and in the said quarrel he intervened. This witness has also stated that prior to the incident once or twice also appellant-Bheru tried to assault him by lathi and for all those incident he lodged the report in the police station. This witness has also stated that prior to the incident once or twice also appellant-Bheru tried to assault him by lathi and for all those incident he lodged the report in the police station. He further stated that on his report police did not take any action against Bheru and told that they will call Bheru and admonish him. ( 7 ) IN cross-examination para 12 he denied the defence suggestion that he went to the house of appellant-Bheru and assaulted his wife Meerabai. This report has been proved as Ex. D. 2 by SI Santosh Kumar singh Tomar (P. W. 12 ). This report was recorded as per provision u/s. 155 of the Cr. P. C. for non-cognizable offence. According to this report the same was lodged on 7-11-1991 at 10. 10 a. m. whereas incident occurred on 6-11 -1991 in the night at 11 p. m. This report is completely silent about assault on the person of the complainant-Gangaram and sustaining of number of injuries. This report is only to the effect that appellant reached at the house of appellant-Bheru and knocked the door. The door was opened by his wife Meera, appellant dealt a lathi blow which fell on left hand of Meerabai. This report is also speaking about sending of meerabai for medical examination to Alot hospital but appellants have not filed any medical report to prove the injury sustained by the wife of appellant-Bheru. The time of the incident and place in this report Ex. D. 2 are altogether different than the report Ex. P. 18 lodged by the complainant-Gangaram. Therefore, appellants cannot get any benefit of report Ex. D. 2 lodged by Meerabai, wife of appellant-Bheru. ( 8 ) THE statement of Gangaram is fully supported by statement of Shaitanbai (P. W. 11), mother of Gangaram to whom gangaram disclosed about the incident. His statement is also supported by FIR (Ex. P. 18 ). Shaitanbai (P. W. 11) has denied the defence suggestion in para eight that there was no enmity between appellants and gangaram. According to her they were having old enmity but what was the reason she was not knowing. ( 9 ) DR. Bherulal patidar (P. W. 8) examined the complainant-Gangaram and found seven incised injuries, one lacerated wound and two abrasions on head, eyes, cheek and chest. Incised injuries are Nos. According to her they were having old enmity but what was the reason she was not knowing. ( 9 ) DR. Bherulal patidar (P. W. 8) examined the complainant-Gangaram and found seven incised injuries, one lacerated wound and two abrasions on head, eyes, cheek and chest. Incised injuries are Nos. 2, 3 and 4, one admeasuring 10" x " x " and near to this injury another incised injury admeasuring 10" x 1 /8" x 1/8" on right side of the frontal bone and injury No. 4 lacerated wound 1" x " x " on occipital region. Corresponding to these injuries on x-ray examination he found fracture. This witness has also proved the bed head ticket Ex. P. 15 of the complainant. Complainant remained hospitalised from 7-11-1991 to 25-11-1991. He has also proved x-ray plate and its reports Exs. P. 12 and P. 13 regarding fracture of frontal bone. In para seven he has specifically stated that injuries No. 2 and 4 were grievous and dangerous to life. Rest injuries were simple in nature. In cross-examination, para 10 he has again stated that corresponding to injuries No. 2 and 4 there was fracture which is clearly evident in x-ray plate Ex. P. 12 and these Injuries were dangerous to life. ( 10 ) RAMLAL (P. W. 1) has stated that appellant-Mohan and Bheru are having relation to nephew and uncle and on the date of incident, after hearing the cry of women in the house of Gangaram he reached to the house of Gangaram and saw him in injured condition. He further stated that in the hospital statement of Gangaram was recorded by police and in that statement he disclosed that he was assaulted by Bheru and Mohan. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for appellants has submitted that in the FIR complainant has mentioned that appellant-Bheru was having farsi with wooden handle whereas in Court he has stated that appellant-Bheru was having dharia and lathi. Therefore, appellant-Bheru deserves for benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) THIS Court is not impressed by this argument because the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, appellant-Bheru deserves for benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) THIS Court is not impressed by this argument because the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for contradiction and corroboration to the statement of the author of FIR in Court but this contradiction has not been put by the defence counsel in cross-examination to this witness and no opportunity was given to this witness to explain the same, therefore, appellants cannot get benefit of this contradiction. Apart from this, the appellant-Bheru was having farsi according to the FIR with wooden handle and on the head of gangaram injury No. 4 lacerated wound could be caused by hard and blunt object like lathi shown in FIR. In Court statement the complainant has deposed that appellant-Bheru was having hard and blunt object like farsi with wooden handle and dharia as well as lathi. ( 13 ) IN view of the positive evidence against the appellant as discussed herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants u/s. 307 of the I. P. C. For constituting this offence, the nature of injury is not very material. The important ingredient is intention of the appellants while assaulting the complainant-Gangaram and their intention is clear that if because of the injuries caused by the appellants-Gangaram would have died the appellants would have been found guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302 of the I. P. C. Since Gangaram is alive they are responsible for conviction u/ s. 307 of the I. P. C. For determination of intention motive always plays a vital role along with nature of weapon used for causing injury, number and nature of injuries caused on the person of complainant and part of the body on which injury was caused. In the instant case, the appellants were having previous enmity with the complainant. They had used deadly weapons like sword, farsi, a sharp edged weapon, dharia, a sharp and heavy weapon along with lathi/wooden handle of farsi and also caused as many as 10 injuries out of which eight injuries were on head, cheek and eyes coupled with fracture underneath incised injury No. 2 and lacerated wound number four. They had used deadly weapons like sword, farsi, a sharp edged weapon, dharia, a sharp and heavy weapon along with lathi/wooden handle of farsi and also caused as many as 10 injuries out of which eight injuries were on head, cheek and eyes coupled with fracture underneath incised injury No. 2 and lacerated wound number four. Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in this appeal regarding conviction of the appellants u/s. 307 of the I. P. C. So far as the sentence is concerned, looking to the fact that the appellants are facing this prosecution since 1991 and now fifteen years have elapsed as also considering the fact that appellants are the first offender, their sentence is reduced from five years to two and a half years and fine as imposed by the trial court, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo RI for two months. ( 14 ) IN the result, appeal is allowed in part on the terms indicated hereinabove. Learned counsel for appellants undertake to inform them to surrender before the trial court on 27th June, 2006 and the learned trial Court is directed upon surrender of the appellants to send them to jail for serving out the remainder part of the sentence. On failure of the appellants to surrender themselves before the trial Court on 27th June, 2006, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate legal action against them under intimation to this Court. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment along with the record immediately. Order accordingly. .