Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants in which it has been stated that appellant no. 1 Sanichar Rajwar died in the year 2000. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, criminal appeal against appellant no.1 Sanichar Rajwar stands abated. 3. The appellant Uma Rajwar has been convicted under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed from the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.1 Lalo Rajwar is that on 26.3.1983 at about 7.00 P.M. his son Binod and son of the accused Sanichar namely, Ashok were quarrelling while they were playing, thereupon he scolded them and removed from there. It has been stated that on 27.3.83 at 7 Oclock in the evening when the informant was standing outside his house it is alleged that both the accused Sanichar Rajwar and Uma Rajwar came there and started abusing him saying that why he had scolded his son. Thereafter an altercation took place between them. It has further been stated that Sanichar Rajwar (since dead) went back to his house and came again having a farsa with him and Uma Rajwar also with Khanti and thereafter accused Sanichar assaulted the informant on his head with farsa. On hulla his wife Yasoda Devi came there, thereafter, Uma Rajwar assaulted her with Khanti on her head. Having sustained injury she fell down and became unconscious. On hearing hulla the villagers Badhan Rajwar, Babulal Rajwar and Bangali Rajwar came there and saved them from further assault. Thereafter, with the help of villagers and his brother Bangali Rajwar, Yasoda Devi and informant Lalo Rajwar in unconscious state were brought to Sirdala Hospital for their treatment. The fardbeyan of the informant Lalo Rajwar was also recorded there and on the basis of the fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and finally case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 7. P.W. 1 is Lalo Rajbanshi, injured. He is the informant of this case. 5. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 7. P.W. 1 is Lalo Rajbanshi, injured. He is the informant of this case. P.W. 2 is Yasoda Devi, wife of P.W. 1, the informant. P.W. 3 is Bangali Rajwar. P.W. 4 is Kesho Rajbanshi, he has been tendered. P.W. 5 is Bachcha Prasad Singh. He is a formal witness. P.W. 6 is Dr. Mathura Pd. Barnwal and P.W. 7 is Babulal Rajbanshi, he has also been tendered. 8. P.W. 1 the informant Lalo Rajbanshi has fully supported the case of prosecution as stated in his fardbeyan. He has stated that about one and half years ago it was Saturday at 5.00 P.M. while he was in his house the accused Sanichar Rajwar (since dead) and Uma Rajwar came there. According to him the accused Sanichar gave a farsa blow on his head and he got injury on his head. When his wife came there on hearing hulla, accused Uma also gave a Khanti blow on her head and after sustaining injury she fell down and became unconscious. He has stated that his children and children of the appellants Sanichar (since dead) had quarrelled while they were playing in the field. He had scolded the children that was the reason of the occurrence. Thereafter both the injured were brought to Sirdala Hospital where they were treated. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded in the Hospital. 9. P.W. 6 is Dr. Mathura Prasad Barnwal who has examined both the injured Lalo Rajbanshi and Yasoda Devi. He has stated that on 26.3.83 he examined the injured Yasoda Devi and found the following injuries on her person:- Incised wound with unconscious state with bleedings present 3 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the parital scalp. 10 According to him the nature of injury was grievous and it was by sharp cutting wound like Khanti. He has proved injury report marked as Ext. 3. 11. On the same day he has also examined the informant Lalo Rajbanshi and found the following injuries on his person:- I. Incised wound on parital scalp 3" x 1/4" x 1/4". II. Body ache. 12. According to him the nature of injury no. 1 was caused by sharp weapon like farsa and injury no. 3. 11. On the same day he has also examined the informant Lalo Rajbanshi and found the following injuries on his person:- I. Incised wound on parital scalp 3" x 1/4" x 1/4". II. Body ache. 12. According to him the nature of injury no. 1 was caused by sharp weapon like farsa and injury no. 2 was caused by blunt substance i.e. the blunt portion of Khanti. Nature of injury was simple. He has proved the injury report which was marked as Ext. 3/1. 13. P.W. 2 is Yasoda Devi. She has also supported the version of the informant P.W. 1. She has also described how she was assaulted on her head by Khanti by appellant Uma Rajwar. According to her also the reason of occurrence was quarrel between the children while they were playing. 14. P.W. 3 is Bangali Rajwar. He is the brother of Lalo Rajbanshi P.W.1, the informant. He has stated that on hulla he reached the place of occurrence and found the appellant Sanichar (since dead) with farsa and appellant Uma with Khanti. He also saw that Sanichar gave farsa blow on the head of Lalo and Uma gave Khanti blow on the head of Yasoda Devi. Having sustained injury she fell down and became unconscious. He with others took them to Sirdala Hospital for their treatment. He also remained in the hospital for about 15 days. 15. P.W. 5 is Bachcha Prasad Singh. He has proved Ext. 1 which is formal F.I.R. recorded by Officer Incharge, Sirdala PS. He has also proved Ext. 2 which is handwriting of Officer Incharge, Sirdala P.S. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention to kill the informant and his wife Yasoda Devi as there was no repeated blow. It has further been submitted that the doctor who examined the injured did not find any cut injury and any ingredient of grievous injury, as such the above injury does not attract the case under Sec.307 IPC. 17. Injury is not on the vital part of the body which is must to constitute an offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Injury is not on the vital part of the body which is must to constitute an offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the evidence, it appears that the appellants had given farsa blow on the head of the informant and also on the head of P.W. 2 Yasoda Devi which is a vital part of the body and since Khanti and farsa are dangerous weapons which are sharp enough to cause death. For attracting an offence under Sec.307 I.P.C. the nature of injury does not matter, rather it is intention and knowledge of an accused matter. The offence under Sec.307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant as he had knowledge that a blow given by Farsa and Khanti on head could be fatal. P.W. 2 has also stated that she had remained in hospital for about 15 days in unconscious state. 18. The learned Court below on the appreciation of the evidence so adduced, rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sec.307 of the IPC. 19. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place about 24 years ago and the appellants have been sufficiently punished and harassed during the prolong litigation, as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellants. 21. Considering the submission that the occurrence took place more than two decades, I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of R.I. for 5 years is reduced to the sentence of R.I. for 2 years. 22. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.