Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellants have called in question the legality of the judgment and order passed by learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, in the file of S. T. No. 183/1987, wherein learned Judge has convicted the appellants Ramchandra, Shrikrishna and Gopal under Sections 148 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for six months, seven years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months RI and also convicted appellants Madan, Leeladhar and Keshiya under Sections 147, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, sentenced each of them to undergo RI for four months, seven years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further RI for six months. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION case as unfurled before the Trial Court is that on 5-7-1988 complainant Ambaram was sleeping inside his hut situated in the field of Village Chandankhedi. In the night at 10 p. m. appellants Gopal, Shrikrishna and Ramchandra entered inside the hutment and beaten the complainant by knees. They were also asking him as to why he took his bullocks from their field, thereafter they dragged him out. The complainant told them that now in future he will not take bullock from their field, even then appellant Ramchandra caused injury by dharia on his left leg, below the knee. When his leg was not cut fully the appellant Gopal put wooden log under his leg and appellant Ramchandra took the axe from Gopal, chopped off left leg below the knee joint and appellant Shrikrishna chopped off right hand below the elbow joint by dharia. Appellant Gopal cut the nose of complainant by knife. Appellants Madan, Leeladhar and Keshiya were catching hold of the complainant. The complainant identified them in electric light. The complainant was assaulted because of old enmity with the appellants. While going the appellants took two starter of LTL Company. Complainant remained there for whole night and when his son Gajraj, brother Nathusingh and Radheshyam reached to his hut in the morning he disclosed about the incident. The chowkidar of Village Chandankhedi sent information of quarrel to the police station. Therefore, SHO, D. B. S. Chouhan reached in Village Chandankhedi and recorded report of Ambaram (Ex. P-l ). Ambaram was sent for medical examination to Public Health Centre, Sagore, where Dr. K. C. Mahajan examined him. The chowkidar of Village Chandankhedi sent information of quarrel to the police station. Therefore, SHO, D. B. S. Chouhan reached in Village Chandankhedi and recorded report of Ambaram (Ex. P-l ). Ambaram was sent for medical examination to Public Health Centre, Sagore, where Dr. K. C. Mahajan examined him. His medical report is Ex. P-3 Dr. Mahajan referred the complainant for further treatment to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. During the course of investigation, spot map (Ex. P-4) was prepared and through seizure memo (Ex. P-5) blood stained earth and controlled earth alongwith blood stained pointed stones were seized. The appellants were arrested and in pursuance of their memorandum statements weapons were seized. On the basis of dehati nalishi (Ex. P-l) in P. S. Sagore, FIR was registered vide, Ex. P-17 and seized articles were sent for chemical examination. The report of FSL is Ex. P-18. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 148, 307 in alternative Section 307 read with Section 149 and 379 of the IPC. ( 3. ) THE appellants have denied the charges. According to them they were falsely implicated because of enmity. They have not examined any witness in defence. The learned Trial Court relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted the appellants as mentioned herein above. ( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for appellants has vehementally argued that statement of complainant about participation of the appellants is not duly corroborated by the medical evidence and no independent witness though available has been examined by the prosecution. The learned Counsel has also submitted that it was a dark night and story of light of electric bulb has been concocted. According to him complainant was assaulted by unknown persons but on the next day, after consultation with his relations he implicated the present applicants on suspicion. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for State has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the Trial Court. According to him, Ambaram (P. W. 1) suffered amputation of left leg below the knee joint right hand below the elbow joint and separation of his nose. His version is duly corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Mahajan as well as his FIR. According to him, Ambaram (P. W. 1) suffered amputation of left leg below the knee joint right hand below the elbow joint and separation of his nose. His version is duly corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Mahajan as well as his FIR. According to the learned Counsel for State the complainant would not implicate innocent persons in place of real culprit and question of identification of the appellants by the complainant in the instant case would not be a big question because appellants and the complainant were residents of same village and well known to each other. Therefore, even in a dark night, the complainant could be able to identify them from close range. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for appellants and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1), the arguments of learned Counsel for appellants regarding their false implication by the complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) is not appellable. Ambaram and the appellants were well known to each other. They had dispute over taking of bullock by the complainant Ambaram from their field. Therefore, complainant Ambaram would be desirous to get the real culprit punished. Ambaram has categorically stated that the appellants Shrikrishna, Ramchandra and Gopal entered inside his hut and caught him as well as assaulted him by their knees. They were asking the complainant as to why he had taken bullocks from their field in the morning. Complainants promised them not to take bullocks in future and also requested them to leave him by touching their feet and with folded hand but appellants Shrikrishna, Ramchandra and Gopal brought him out of the hut and thereafter Leeladhar and Madan caught the hands of the complainant. Appellant Gopal caught his one leg and appellant Ramchandra chopped off his left leg by dharia. When simple dharia blow could not cut the leg, therefore, appellant Gopal put wooden log under his leg for support and Ramchandra, after taking axe from Gopal cut his left leg from below the knee joint. There was complete amputation from below the knee joint of left leg. Appellant Shrikrishna chopped off the right hand after putting the same in wooden log from below the elbow joint and appellant Gopal cut the nose by knife. There was complete amputation from below the knee joint of left leg. Appellant Shrikrishna chopped off the right hand after putting the same in wooden log from below the elbow joint and appellant Gopal cut the nose by knife. In cross-examination, Para 12 this witness has admitted that he was prosecuted along with his two brothers in the year 1976 for cutting the leg of Ramkishan, father of Leeladhar. This positive admission of the complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) establishes that the appellants were having enmity with the complainant. In Para 14, he has denied the ill-will with other villagers and in Para 31 of cross-examination this witness has denied the defence suggestion that in the night thieves entered inside his hut and he was assaulted by those thieves and he could not identify because of night darkness, therefore, on suspicion because of enmity he implicated the appellants. ( 7. ) IN view of the finding of the Trial Court in Para 30 that appellant Keshiya did not take part in the incident for taking out the complainant outside the hut, assaulting him by knees by other appellants and chopping off of one leg, hand and cutting of nose by other appellants. There is absolutely no allegation against this appellant for directly or indirectly participating in the incident of causing serious injuries to complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1 ). Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that his presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. Though, the injured Ambaram would not leave the real culprit to bring them in the Court of law for prosecution but he was also not fully immune to involve more persons than the real culprit because of inimical terms. Therefore, on careful and cautious appreciation of evidence of this witness and surrounding circumstances, in view of this Court appellant Keshiya is entitled for benefit of doubt. ( 8. ) THIS Court has gone through the complete statement of complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) and found it unconceivable that the thieves would cause such kind of injuries to complainant especially complainant was sleeping underneath the hut which was open from all sides except roof. The complainant was sleeping there just to watch the crop. ( 8. ) THIS Court has gone through the complete statement of complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) and found it unconceivable that the thieves would cause such kind of injuries to complainant especially complainant was sleeping underneath the hut which was open from all sides except roof. The complainant was sleeping there just to watch the crop. Therefore, it does not appear probable that thieves would have gone to the complainant and cause such an injury especially when thieves were not going to get any thing from the complainant and they could not expect any valuable article from the open hut where the complainant was sleeping for watching the crop. The way in which the complainant Ambaram was assaulted shows that for taking vengeance his enemies had chopped off his one leg, one hand and also cut the nose so that his life would become miserable. The way in which permanent separation of leg, hand and nose were caused also indicates that appellants were not having intention to kill the. complainant, otherwise they could have caused only one injury by axe on neck for finishing the life of the complainant. ( 9. ) THE medical evidence of Dr. K. C. Mahajan (P. W. 3) is also fully corroborating the statement of Ambaram (P. W. 1 ). His version is also corroborated by dehati nalishi (Ex. P-l ). Some minor contradictions, omissions in the FIR, Le. , the hut was open from three sides and non-presence of more than four to five injuries caused by sharp edged weapon could not itself be sufficient to discard the entire testimony of the complainant. ( 10. ) THE learned Counsel for appellants has emphasized on the point that according to Ambaram (P. W. 4) son of Rughnath, in the field of complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) there was no electric connection, therefore, story of presence of electric light was deliberately introduced by the complainant and true fact is that he did not identify his assailant, carries not much weight. Ambaram (P. W. 4) in Para two has stated that in the hutment there was no electricity but adjacent to the field there was electric connection and complainant could take temporary connection from his neighbour. Complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) has denied the defence suggestion regarding absence of electric light. Ambaram (P. W. 4) in Para two has stated that in the hutment there was no electricity but adjacent to the field there was electric connection and complainant could take temporary connection from his neighbour. Complainant Ambaram (P. W. 1) has denied the defence suggestion regarding absence of electric light. This Court is of the view that even if there was no electric light the complainant Ambaram could very well identify the appellants who were residents of the same village and well known to him. The way in which injuries were caused to Ambaram he could have ample opportunity and time to see and identify his assailants from a very close range. The statement of Ambaram is completely disclosing the incident of entrance of three appellants inside the hut, assaulting him by knees, thereafter asking him as to why he took his bullock from their field, thereafter brought him out and two appellants caught hold of his hand and legs, one appellant put wooden log underneath the leg and another caused axe blow and below by heavy sharp edged weapon dharia, third accused cut the nose by knife. All these must have been done after fully over powering the complainant, otherwise with free hand and legs nobody would allow to cause such kind of injuries. ( 11. ) ON considering the statement of Ambaram, medical evidence and other evidence on record, this Court is of the view that appellants were not having intention to commit murder of Ambaram. Their intention was to cause permanent separation of hand and leg as well as disfiguration of the face which they had done. They had previous enmity and motive because according to them the complainant Ambaram also cut the leg of father of appellant Leeladhar named Ramkishan. At the same time, it could be easily discerned that appellants while causing permanent separation of one leg, one hand and nose were having knowledge that their act was so imminently dangerous and the same must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and if the complainant would die they would be liable for commission of his murder. The nature of injuries, the time and place for causing such bodily injuries are also very material. The nature of injuries, the time and place for causing such bodily injuries are also very material. In the instant case, at the outskirt of the village in the night one leg, one hand and nose of the complainant were chopped of. Because of this injury there must be profuse bleeding and there was every possibility of death of the complainant because of profuse bleeding from major blood arteries. There was no chance for immediate medical aid. It was sheer luck or bad luck of the complainant that somehow or the other he survived up to the next day morning when his relations came to him and he was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment. ( 12. ) UNDER all these circumstances, this Court is of the view that if the complainant would have died the act of the appellants would have fallen within Section 300 Clause Fourth, commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Since the complainant has not died the appellants Ramchandra, Gopal and Shrikrishna have been rightly convicted by the Trial Court for commission of offence under Sections 148 and 307 of the IPC. The appellants Madan and Leeladhar have also been rightly convicted under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Keshiya is not sustainable. ( 13. ) IN the result, appeal of the appellant Keshiya is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Keshiya are rightly convicted under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Keshiya is not sustainable. ( 14. ) IN the result, appeal of the appellant Keshiya is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Keshiya are hereby set aside. The appellant Keshiya is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, deposited by this appellant be refunded to him. However, conviction and sentence passed against, the appellants Ramchandra, Shrikrishna, Gopal, Madan and Leeladhar are hereby dismissed having no merit. The appellants are on bail. Their Counsel is directed to inform them to remain present before the Trial Court on 29th June, 2006 and Trial Court is directed to send the appellants in jail for serving out the remainder part of the sentence. The appellants are on bail. Their Counsel is directed to inform them to remain present before the Trial Court on 29th June, 2006 and Trial Court is directed to send the appellants in jail for serving out the remainder part of the sentence. If appellants are not appearing on 29th June, 2006, in that event the Trial Court shall take appropriate legal action to secure the presence of these appellants, under intimation to this Court. ( 15. ) THE appeal is allowed in part, on the terms indicated hereinabove. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment along with the record immediately to the Trial Court.