Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the case arise from the same judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants, namely, Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian have been convicted under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant, Bhot Mian, has been convicted under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and he was further awarded to pay fine of Rs. 500.00 to injured Md. Sagir. 3. The prosecution case, as per the Fardbeyan of Abdul Hamid (P.W.1) is that on 4.7.1987 at 11 A.M. the cow of his brother Sagir Mohamad (the injured) broke the branch of Gold Mohar tree by entering into Kitchen garden of accused Manir Mian resulting into the quarrel between the ladies and at about 8 P.M. while the informant and his brother came home from Siwan, Manirs daughter Fulsan came and called for Md. Sagir and after a while on Hulla near Chauk the informant and his nephew Sabir ran there and saw Sagir was over powered by Manir and Jamaluddin and Bhot Mian was daggering him. His brother fell down on the earth with cut injuries on left side of neck, chest and abdomen with profused bleeding. It has been further alleged that accused Bhot Mian was having blood stained shaving razor and was telling repeatedly to kill and was jumping. It has been further alleged that his nephew also sustained cut injuries and after assault Manir Mian led Bhot Mian to abscond and the occurrence is witnessed by the witnesses. Thereafter with the help of the witnesses the injured was brought to the Sadar Hospital where he was treated. The conditions of his brother was serious. Thereafter the police came to the Hospital and Fardbeyan of the injured was recorded. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session for trial and finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether five witnesses. 6. P.W.1, Abdul Hamid is the informant and has proved his signature on Fardbeyan (Ext.1). 4. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether five witnesses. 6. P.W.1, Abdul Hamid is the informant and has proved his signature on Fardbeyan (Ext.1). He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 11 A.M. the cow of Md. Sagir entered into the premises of the appellant Manir Mian and damaged the branch of Gold Mohar tree on which the ladies of both the houses started altercation which later on subsided. He has further stated that at about 7 P.M. in the evening after closing his shop went to the house of Sagir (injured) and called Sagir. He learnt that he has gone to the house of accused Manir Mian. He has further stated that when he was near the Chowk he heard the Hulla. He went to the house of Sagir where he found his brother tying on the ground. He saw accused Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian caught hold of his brother and accused Bhot Mian was assaulting him with shaving razor. When he tried to save the injured he got cut injury on his left hand. He has further stated that his brother received cut injuries on the left side of neck, chest and abdomen. The injured with the help of the informant and Khurshid Ali was taken to Siwan Hospital for his treatment and from where he was referred to P.M.C.H, Patna. He has further stated that at about 11 P.M. at Siwan his statement was recorded on which he put his signature. He has further stated that witnesses, namely, Samshul, Taiyab and Khursid were not inclined to depose in court due to fear of the appellants. 7. P.W.2, Sabir Ali is the nephew of the informant. He has also supported the case of the prosecution. According to him on the day of occurrence on Hulla he came to the place of occurrence. He saw that accused Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian had caught hold his father and accused Bhot Mian had assaulted him with shaving razor. He also got cut injury on his left hand when he tried to save him. According to him accused Bhot Mian gave 8-9-chura blows on the person of his father. He saw that accused Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian had caught hold his father and accused Bhot Mian had assaulted him with shaving razor. He also got cut injury on his left hand when he tried to save him. According to him accused Bhot Mian gave 8-9-chura blows on the person of his father. After assault they fled away and injured was brought to Siwan hospital for treatment and from where he was brought to Patna Hospital as his condition was serious. 8. P.W.3, Md. Sagir is the injured who has also supported the genesis of the occurrence and altercation in between the ladies. He has stated that when he reached his village at about 7.30 in the evening the daughter of Manir Mian called him and when he went to the house of Manir he was asked for compensation for damage of the tree by his cow which he accepted. But while he was returning back the accused Manir Mian and Jamaluddin caught hold of him in the way and accused Bhot Mian started assaulting him with shaving razor. He received injuries on left side of neck, chest and abdomen. He has further stated that the occurrence was seen by Taiyab, Samsul, Ghughali and Hussain. According to him on Hulla his son and brother Abdul Hamid came and tried to save him. They were also assaulted. The injured became unconscious and regained his consciousness at mid night at Siwan Hospital where his statement was recorded by the Dr.. He was referred to P.M.C.H. where he was treated for about 15 days. 9. P.W.4 is Dr. Binay Kumar Pandey who had examined the injured Md. Sagir and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound 5" x 1" muscle deep on the lower part of left side of the neck extending from supra external knotch to back of the neck. (ii) Incised wound 4" x 1" muscles deep on the upper part of neck estending from angle of left mendible to left side of the neck. (iii) Incised wound 2" x 1" x Farsca deep on left temporal region. (iv) Sharp cut of the pinna of the left ear 1 1/2" in length involving whole thickness of 1/4 of the whole area. (v) Incised wound 2 1/2 x 3/4" x muscle deep on upper part of left side of the chest. (iii) Incised wound 2" x 1" x Farsca deep on left temporal region. (iv) Sharp cut of the pinna of the left ear 1 1/2" in length involving whole thickness of 1/4 of the whole area. (v) Incised wound 2 1/2 x 3/4" x muscle deep on upper part of left side of the chest. (vi) Incised wound 3" x 1" muscle deep in left axila. (vii) Incised wound 10" x 3" x abdomen deep on lower part of left side of abdomen extending from left to mid abdomen just about the left elliac crest. (viii)lncised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the left parietal region. All the injuries are caused by sharp weapon may be like Chhura with edges very shape and he has identified the injured present personally in" court. 10. P.W.5, Baleshwar Prasad is a formal witness. He has proved his hand writing on the Fardbeyan (Ext.3. He has also proved the F.I.R. (Ext.4). 11. The defence has also examined two witnesses. D.W.1, Braj Kishore Singh, is a formal witness who has proved Ext.A and A/ 1 the dying declaration of Md. Sagir in pen and signature of Dr. A.K. Verma and signature of injury (Sic- injured 7) over it. D.W.2, Shyam Narain Prasad is a Peon of Sadar Hospital Siwan and has proved the writing on bed Head Ticket of Sagir Ahmad. In this case one Sheo Pujan Prasad has been examined as court witness to prove original case diary pages no.1 to 7 of this case in the pen of S.I. Hari Prasad (Ext.5). 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the I.O. of this case has not been examined which has prejudiced the case of the appellants. It has been further submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that even though there was injury on the person of P.W.2 but he was not been examined by the Doctor as the police has not forwarded him to be examined by the Doctor. It has been further submitted that the court below has erred in law while convicting the appellants under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code even there is no ingredients present to attract the offence punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian. It has been further submitted that the court below has erred in law while convicting the appellants under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code even there is no ingredients present to attract the offence punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian. It has been further submitted that the genesis of the case has not been proved and the prosecution story is false, concocted and after thought as there is delay of two hours in lodging the F.I.R. No independent witness was examined. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. 13. The submission of the learned counsel that no independent witness has been examined and only interested witnesses have been examined but it is apparent from the deposition of the witnesses that independent witness did not opted to be examined because of fear of the appellants. So far as the genesis of the occurrence is concerned, in a criminal case genesis is not very important when there is evidence about the manner of occurrence and assault on the person of the injured. The submission of the learned counsel that there is no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code against Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian even then the appellants have been convicted under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. But from the prosecution story the allegation against these two appellants, namely, Manir Mian and Jamaluddin Mian is that they had caught hold the injured Md. Sagir and appellant Bhot Mian inflicted several razor blows on the person of the injured, Md. Sagir. As such the court below inferred that they too had common intention against the appellant, Bhot Mian. So far as contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are concerned, they are not vital and are bound to occur because of delay in disposal of the case. The submission of the learned counsel that there is delay in loding the F.I.R. which has not been explained but it is clear that son and brother of the Sagir was also injured and it was necessary for them to go to Hospital for treatment and when the injured were in the Hospital the police came and recorded Fardbeyan of the informant and also statement of the other injured. So there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. 14. So there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. 14. On the appreciating of the evidence on the record the court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 15. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place 19 years ago and it was for triffling matter of breaking of the branch of Gold Mohar tree. As such some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellants. 16. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel that the occurrence took place in the year 1987 i.e 19 years ago it will be expedient in the interest of justice, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced from 5 years to three years. 17. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence these appeals are dismissed. 18. Mr. Dinesh Prasad Sharma appeared in this case as amicus curiae. He will be paid his remuneration by the Council of Legal Aid and Advice Committee.