ORAL JUDGMENT :- Both these appeals arise out of same Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, therefore, they may be disposed of by this common judgment. The appellants, who were the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have challenged, by these appeals, the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Under section 307, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, under section 324 to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 506 to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default to pay fine, they were to undergo further imprisonment of varying terms. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Suresh Thapa, along with his family members, used to reside in a house at Nepali Chawl, at Ghatkopar (West). One Mohan Patankar, who was a Gunda by character, and his three companions, who are the present appellants, also used to reside in the same vicinity and they used to come frequently in the area, where Suresh Thapa was residing. The incident of this case took place during the night between 1st and 2nd July, 2001. Suresh Thapa and his family members were sleeping in the house. At about 4.00 a.m. electric supply to his house was disrupted and it became dark in his house. Immediately, his mother, P.W.8 Kamala and other members of the family asked to see what had happened. Therefore, P.W.1, Suresh Thapa came out from his house to check as to what had happened and he found that only electric supply to his house was disrupted, while lights in the other house in the locality were on. He went to see the meter cabin in which the meters of different houses were located to check the fuse of the meter of his house. When he went to the side of the cabin, he found Mohan Patankar and his companions accused Jitu Pande, Sandeep, Sachin sitting just near that cabin. Suresh Thapa found that D.P. of the meter of his house was switched off, resulting in disruption of the electric supply. He switched on the concerned D.P. and immediately the lights of his house were also on. Suresh Thapa found that D.P. of the meter of his house was switched off, resulting in disruption of the electric supply. He switched on the concerned D.P. and immediately the lights of his house were also on. He suspected that Mohan Patankar and his companions must have played mischief with the D.P. button of his house and therefore, he enquired from them about this. Mohan Patankar without any justification raised some quarrel with him. He had also tried to tease P.W. 3 Pinky, younger sister of Suresh about two days prior to this incident. Suresh Thapa asked him about that incident also. On this Mohan Patankar began to abuse Suresh Thapa and he took a sword from the hands of Sachin and assaulted on head of Suresh Thapa. At the same time, Sandeep gave blow of his chopper on the right shoulder and Jitu Pande also gave a blow on his head with some sharp weapon. Sachin beat him with kicks and fist blows. Due to this beating, he suffered bleeding injuries on the head and shoulder. He shouted for help and fell down. Meanwhile, his mother Kamala P.W.8, brother Ganesh P.W.9, and sisters P.W.3 Pinky and P.W. 4 Geeta also came there. People of the locality did not come out from their houses even though they heard the shouts and were peeping from the windows of their houses. They had not come out, because of terror of Mohan Patankar. Mohan Patankar and his companions left the place abusing and threatening that they would see, if any report is lodged with the police. Due to the fear, report was not given to the police. Suresh Thapa was taken into his house and first aid was given to him. After application of Hydrogen paraxoid and Neosporine bleeding from the injuries was stopped. At about 10 a.m. Suresh Thapa began feel pain and therefore, he was taken to Rajawadi hospital. At Rajawadi hospital, Suresh Thapa was initially examined in the casualty department and then was admitted as indoor patient, where he was thoroughly examined and treated. P.W.8 Kamalabai had also suffered some injuries and therefore, she was also examined and treated. At the hospital itself Report of Suresh Thapa was recorded by PSI, Jadhav and this was treated as FIR. At Rajawadi hospital, Suresh Thapa was initially examined in the casualty department and then was admitted as indoor patient, where he was thoroughly examined and treated. P.W.8 Kamalabai had also suffered some injuries and therefore, she was also examined and treated. At the hospital itself Report of Suresh Thapa was recorded by PSI, Jadhav and this was treated as FIR. On the basis of this, Crime No. 248/2001 for the offences under sections 324, 326, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against four persons viz. Mohan Patankar, Jitu Pande, Sandeep Nadkar and Sachin More as accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. 3. During the· investigation statements of witnesses from the family of Suresh Thapa were recorded. Nobody from the vicinity came forward to make statement about the incident. A sharp weapon, namely Kukri, was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused Jitu Pande and a Chopper was seized on the basis of information given by Sandeep. Mohan Patankar could not be arrested. During the investigation, as per instructions given by the Superior Officers, section 307, Indian Penal Code was added. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons, while Mohan Patankar was shown as absconding accused. After committal of the case, in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2002, accused No.2 Jitu, Accused No.3 Sandeep and accused No.4 Sachin were re-numbered as accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively. 4. Charge was framed against accused for the offences punishable under sections 307,324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty. According to them, they were falsely implicated in this case. They also contended that Suresh Thapa had some illicit relations with one woman, due to which he had dispute with one Anil and possibly he was assaulted and injured by Mr. Mohan Patankar and Anil. As the real culprits could not be found, the present appellants are falsely implicated because of some enmity. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, in all 13 witnesses were examined. Relying on their testimony, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced accused persons as stated earlier. Accused No. 1 Jitu is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2005 and accused No.2 Sandeep and accused No.3 Sachin are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005. 6. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, in all 13 witnesses were examined. Relying on their testimony, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced accused persons as stated earlier. Accused No. 1 Jitu is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2005 and accused No.2 Sandeep and accused No.3 Sachin are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2005. 6. Heard Miss Razia Shaikh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Miss Shilpa Gajare, learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned Counsel have taken me through the prosecution evidence extensively. 7. About the main incident, prosecution relies upon the testimony of P.W.1 Suresh Thapa, P.W. 3 Pinky, P.W. 8 Kamala and P.W. 9 Ganesh and P.W. 10 Geeta. All these witnesses are from the family of Suresh Thapa. Admittedly, no one from the vicinity came forward to state about the incident and according to the prosecution this was due to the terror and fear of Mohan Patankar and his companions. Out of these 5 witnesses, P.W.l Suresh suffered number of injuries and P.W. 8 Kamala also suffered one injury. Suresh Thapa and other witnesses from his family deposed about the incident, short of allegation of teasing to P. W. 3 Pinky by Mohan Patankar and his companions about 2 days prior to the incident. There is no dispute that all these persons were living in the house at Nepali chawl at Ghatkopar (West). There are number of houses in that area and there is a common meter room, referred as the cabin by these witnesses in their evidence. In the said meter room for each house there is a meter or supply line having its independent switch. On 2-7-2001 at about 4.00 a.m these witnesses were sleeping in their house, they found that electric supply was disrupted and it had become dark. P. W. 8 Kamala asked his son Suresh to see what had happened. Therefore, Suresh Thapa came out of the house and found that the electric supply to his house alone was disrupted, while lights were on in the remaining houses of the vicinity. Therefore, he went to the meter room or cabin to check the fuse. At that time he saw Mohan Patankar and the present appellants sitting near that cabin. He entered into the meter cabin and checked the switch of his meter and found that it was off. Therefore, he went to the meter room or cabin to check the fuse. At that time he saw Mohan Patankar and the present appellants sitting near that cabin. He entered into the meter cabin and checked the switch of his meter and found that it was off. He switched on the meter and immediately lights of his house were also on. In view of the presence of Mohan Patankar and the present appellants just by the side of cabin at odd hours and disruption of electricity to his house, he suspected that they must have played some mischief and therefore, he asked them about it. In the result, Mohan Patankar assaulted him with a sword, while his companion Jitu assaulted on his head with a sharp weapon and Sandeep assaulted on his right shoulder with chopper. Due to this he suffered number of bleeding injuries. Sachin beat him with fist and kick blows. Hearing shouts his mother and other family members came out of the house and then accused persons went away abusing and threatening that if they would lodge a report with the police, they would see them. Evidence of Suresh is substantially corroborated by other four witnesses about the actual incident. P.W. 8 Kamala claims that she also suffered injuries during that incident. It was contended that P. W. 10 Geeta had also suffered injury but it appears that she was not referred to the Medical Officer nor any injury was found on her person. 8. As per these witnesses due to fear they had not taken Suresh to the Hospital or Police Station. They took him inside the house and gave some first aid, due to which bleeding from the injuries was stopped. At about 10 a.m. he began to feel pain and thereafter he was taken to Rajawadi Hospital. P.W. 6, Dr. Sachidanand was a casualty Medical Officer on duty from 8 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. As per his evidence, one Suresh Bagbahadur Thapa, P.W.1 was brought to the casualty and he had come to the hospital at his own, meaning thereby that he was not brought to the hospital by police but he had come with the help of relatives. Dr. Sachidanand examined Suresh and found following four injuries. i. CLW on forehead admeasuring 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. deep. ii. CL W left temporal region 5 c.m. X 1 c.m. Bone deep. iii. Dr. Sachidanand examined Suresh and found following four injuries. i. CLW on forehead admeasuring 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. deep. ii. CL W left temporal region 5 c.m. X 1 c.m. Bone deep. iii. CLW 6 c.m. X 1 c.m. left temporal region bone deep. iv. CLW right auxiliary region 6 C.m. X 2.5 C.m. deep. Suresh was conscious. His B.P. was normal and general condition was normal. According to him, all the injuries could be caused by sharp and cutting weapon like kukri, knife or any other like weapon. He took entry in the register Exh. 24A, is the true xerox copy of the said entry. He advised X-ray of head and chest and then referred him to Surgical ward where he was admitted. 9. Evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Pravin Gore, House Officer (Medical Officer), on duty in first Unit of Surgical Department reveals that Suresh Thapa was brought to the ward and was admitted in the hospital at about 4 p.m. There was history of assault at about 4 a.m. with sharp weapon. He also examined and found four injuries. According to him, clinically he came to the conclusion that there were fractures to the right parital bone, as well as left frontal bone and accordingly, he took note in the original indoor case papers. Exh. 42A (collectively) are the true xerox copies of the said papers. According to him, the patient was admitted in the hospital and was treated for three days. The record of the hospital reveals that X-ray and City Scan of the head was undertaken. X-ray ruled out any fracture. Thus, the clinical observation of Dr. Pravin Gore about the two fractures is not corroborated by the X-ray reports. The evidence reveal that the injuries were stitched and he was discharged after three days from the hospital. 10. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that even though Suresh Thapa had suffered 4 injuries including three on the head, none of the injuries was grievous as defined in section 320 of Indian Penal Code. 11. Evidence of P. W. 3 Dr. Rajesh Dhepe, another Medical Officer of Rajawadi Hospital, reveals that on 2nd July, 2001 at about 5.06 p.m. P. W. 8 Kamala B. Thapa was brought to the hospital by her daughter. On examination Dr. Dhepe found that she had suffered contused lacerated wound on right hand 1st web. 11. Evidence of P. W. 3 Dr. Rajesh Dhepe, another Medical Officer of Rajawadi Hospital, reveals that on 2nd July, 2001 at about 5.06 p.m. P. W. 8 Kamala B. Thapa was brought to the hospital by her daughter. On examination Dr. Dhepe found that she had suffered contused lacerated wound on right hand 1st web. admeasuring 1 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X skin deep. This injury could also be caused by sharp and cutting weapon like knife, sword, chopper or kukri. Exh.17 A is true copy of the original entry pertaining to the said injury. This injury was also simple by nature. 12. According to prosecution after registration of offence accused Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested and when they were in custody on the basis of information given by accused No. 1 Jitu a Kukri, article 2, and on the basis of information given by accused No.2 Sandeep a chopper, article 1, were recovered. The statements made by them leading to discovery were recorded as memorandum and seizure was recorded under seizure panchanama. P,.W. 4 Rashid Baba Shaikh and P.W. 13 Kasam were said to be panch witnesses associated with this information and discovery. P.WA Rashid did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. P. W. 13 Kasam partly supported the prosecution but his evidence also does not fully corroborate the prosecution story. P.W. 11 Ashok Borase, who was Investigating Officer has proved the discovery of these weapons on the basis of information given by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Recovery panchanama and seizure panchanama are marked Exh.36. Even though panch witnesses did not fully support discovery of these two weapons, I find no valid reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.I. Ashok Borase, who had seized these weapons. These weapons are also identified by Suresh Thapa as weapons of assault. 13. Taking into consideration the oral testimony of 5 eye witnesses, including Suresh Thapa and his mother Kamala, who were both injured, Medical evidence pertaining to the injuries and discovery of weapons on the basis of information given by accused No.1 Jitu and accused No.2 Sandeep, I find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that Accused Nos. 1 to 3, along with absconding accused Mohan Patankar, had in fact assaulted Suresh Thapa with sharp cutting weapons and had caused several injuries to him. 1 to 3, along with absconding accused Mohan Patankar, had in fact assaulted Suresh Thapa with sharp cutting weapons and had caused several injuries to him. In the same incident, his mother P.W. 8 Kamala also suffered one injury which could be caused by sharp and cutting weapon. 14. Minor discrepancies in the evidence, which could be due to lapse of time and loss of memory, need not be given much importance. There is no material on record to believe the defence story that Suresh had some love affair, due to which he was beaten by Anil and Mohan Patankar. There is no reason to believe that the present accused were falsely implicated while real culprit Anil was protected. 15. As pointed out earlier, initially the offence was registered under sections 324, 326, and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code by P.W. 7 PSI, D.N. Jadhav and he had taken over the investigation of the case. However, his evidence shows that as per the instruction given by Assistant Commissioner of Police, section 307 of Indian Penal Code was added and the investigation was handed over to Police Inspector Ashok Borase. After investigation charge-sheet was filed for the offences under sections 324, 307, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, section 326 was deleted and rightly so, because as per the medical evidence discussed above, not a single injury on the person of Suresh Thapa could be termed as grievous hurt. All the injuries were hurts caused with the sharp and cutting weapons. If there would be no requisite intention or knowledge to cause death, the offence would be punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. However, it appears that in view of the weapons used and the time of assault, invoked section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has only discussed the injuries and the oral evidence but has not given any cogent reason as to why the 'accused are convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Before section 307, Indian Penal Code can be invoked one has to look to the definition of culpable homicide under section 299 and of murder under section 300. Culpable homicide is defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code as follows. Before section 307, Indian Penal Code can be invoked one has to look to the definition of culpable homicide under section 299 and of murder under section 300. Culpable homicide is defined under section 299 of Indian Penal Code as follows. "Whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such an act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." Under section 300, Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder :_ "Firstly, If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or; Secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused or; Thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or; Fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. " If the accused acts with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances but the victim survives, he shall be punished for the offence of attempt to commit murder under section 307. Therefore, it is clear that to hold the accused is guilty for the offence of attempt to commit murder, it is necessary to establish that he had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. 16. In the present case, neither FIR nor in the oral evidence, there is any mention of any serious enmity between the parties. In the FIR, there is only mention of teasing younger sister of Suresh two days prior to the incident by Mohan Patankar and his companions. However, no oral evidence is given before the Court even about that incident. The FIR shows that the electric supply to the house of Suresh was disrupted as button was switched off from the meter room or cabin. However, no oral evidence is given before the Court even about that incident. The FIR shows that the electric supply to the house of Suresh was disrupted as button was switched off from the meter room or cabin. In the given circumstances, it would be assumed that the mischief was played by Mohan Patankar and his companions but still there could be no intention on the part of those persons to cause death or murder of Suresh or any member of his family. In the FIR merely it is alleged that the culprits had assaulted and beaten Suresh and while going away they had threatened against lodging a report to the police. As pointed out earlier even though, out of four injuries suffered by Suresh Thapa three were on head, all the injuries were simple, none of them was grievous hurt nor any of them was likely to cause death if the intention of the culprits would be to cause death, they would not leave him with such injuries. It appears that the dispute had occurred when Suresh asked Mohan Patankar about disruption of electric supply and it resulted into abusing by Mohan Patankar. It is material to note that in the FIR not a single word was used to indicate that the accused persons had intention to cause death or had attempted to commit murder of Suresh. The FIR was only about attack and causing of injuries. The injuries were apparently such that even Suresh and his family members did not take them seriously and with the first aid given at home, bleeding was stopped. In the hospital after thorough investigation including X-ray and City Scan, the injuries were required to be stitched only. Taking into consideration and the circumstances, in which abruptly the accused persons had assaulted Suresh, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death was present. Therefore, it is difficult to hold the accused persons guilty for the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. I find that even for the injuries caused to Suresh, the accused persons can be held guilty of the offences punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. They are rightly held guilty under section 324 for the injury caused to P.W.8 Kamala. I find that even for the injuries caused to Suresh, the accused persons can be held guilty of the offences punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. They are rightly held guilty under section 324 for the injury caused to P.W.8 Kamala. The trial Court was also right in convicting them for the offence punishable under section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 506(2) needs no interference but conviction under section 307, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 17. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent of conviction and sentence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. The conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 506(2) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. Appeals partly allowed.