JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard the parties and the judgment is as follows. 2. Appellants were accused persons in Sessions Case No. 13/7 of 1988 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir. They were charged for the offences u/s 148 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. on the allegations that on 03.06.1987 they constituted an unlawful assembly to commit riot and were armed with deadly weapons like lathis, tangis and iron rods and that in furtherance of the common object of that unlawful assembly, they assaulted Sudhansu Naik (P.W. 4), Aditya Kumar Singh Nina alias Aditya Singh Babu (P.W. 13), Karunakar Behera (P.W. 2), Raj Kishore Dalai (P.W. 10), Achuta Bhanj (P.W. 1) and Biranchi Behera (P.W. 8) with a view to attempt their murder. 3. In further detail, prosecution case is that on 03.06.1987, Sitala Sasti festival was being observed in village Jarasingha. The aforesaid injured witnesses had gone to that village to witness the festival. On the ground that the aforesaid injured witnesses misbehaved the ladies of village Jarasingha, the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, attempted to commit murder of the injured witnesses. As noted in the impugned judgment, defence plea of the accused persons was that the inured prosecution witnesses misbehaved to the ladies and therefore they (the accused persons) protested and in that connection, there were some altercations, but the prosecution party apprehending criminal action against them, has created a false case as a counter blast. 4. To substantive the charge, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the above mentioned injured as the eyewitnesses. In addition to that P.W. Nos. 3, 9 and 11 were also examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. No. 14 is the Investigating Officer and rest of the witnesses are the doctors, who treated the inured persons and issued their Injury Certificates and opinion reports. Weapons like, Tangia, Lathis and iron rods were seized in course of investigation and marked as M.Os. I to VI on the ground that those are the weapons of offence. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 5. On assessment of evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the occurrence is proved not only from the statement of the prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses to the occurrence but also from the admission made by the accused persons in their defence plea. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence. 5. On assessment of evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the occurrence is proved not only from the statement of the prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses to the occurrence but also from the admission made by the accused persons in their defence plea. He did not grant credit to the defence plea of innocence and found the accused persons to be members of the unlawful assembly, who inflicted the injuries by different weapons. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for the offences and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 148, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for eight years u/s 307/149, I.P.C. 6. Bone of contention of the Appellants is that learned Addl. Sessions Judge unreasonably discarded the defence plea, inasmuch as, in course of their examination, the Doctors have opined that the injuries found on the body of different injured persons were possible by fall. Since the accused persons took the plea that the indecent act of the inured persons hunt sentiment of the local people and therefore, they (the injured persons) ran away on the fear of assault and in that process, they fell and sustained the injuries. The aforesaid argument is attractive but not with any substance, inasmuch as, according to the evidence of the doctors, some of the injuries were possible by fall but not the incised wound etc. Possibility of an injury by fall automatically does not make out that the injury was not caused by assault, when there is specific allegation of assault and hurt which has been substantially corroborated from the evidence of the doctors. Thus, this Court finds no illegality in appreciation of evidence and recording finding by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the occurrence of assault. The criticism to such finding is futile. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that looking to the nature of the injuries, it could not have been said that the accused persons attempted to commit murder of any of the injured persons and therefore, the order of conviction u/s 307/149, I.P.C. is unsustainable. Similarly, he argues that a mere protest to the indecent behavior shown by the injured persons towards female folk and the consequential scuffle and the act of assault should not be viewed so seriously. Learned Addl. Similarly, he argues that a mere protest to the indecent behavior shown by the injured persons towards female folk and the consequential scuffle and the act of assault should not be viewed so seriously. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, however, supports the impugned finding and argues to maintain the order of conviction, but he is unable to justify how a case of attempt to murder is made out from the evidence on record. 8. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that injury certificates of P.Ws 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 13 are respectively Exts. 2, 7, 4, 6, 5 and 3. So far as injury of P.W.2 is concerned, besides the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 6), it appears from the evidence of the referral doctor (P.W. 12) and his report, Ext. 10 that there was fracture of Proximal Phalanx of right ring finger. Similarly, in case of injuries of P.W. 10, evidence of Dr. T. Narasingh Rao of V.S.S. Medical College (P.W. 15) reveals that there was fracture of patella of right knee joint and there was no other fracture injury on the body of P.W.10. It reveals from the injury certificates, Ext. 2 to 7 that all the aforesaid injured persons sustained injuries like bruises, abrasions and lacerated wounds except in the case of P.W.4, who had received one incised wound over left eyebrow. That incised wound was of the dimension of 1?" ? ?" x muscles deep over left eyebrow. That injury was also described as simple in nature. It is thus found on record that except the bone fracture injury of each of P.Ws. 2 and 10, rest of the injuries were simple in nature and such injuries were not described to be fatal in any manner. 9. Section 307, I.P.C. provides that Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that Act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall also be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned. It is apparent from the above quoted provision that a case of attempt to murder can be deducted from the intention or knowledge of the offender in doing the overt act and the consequence to which it could have led. Therefore, absence of injury may not be a reason to redeem a person from the charge u/s 307, I.P.C. and similarly existence of an injury, whether simple or grievous may not be a reason to convict a person u/s 307, I.P.C, unless the requisite intention or the knowledge of the offender is proved. Such factums can be ascertained from the evidence of the injured persons or the opinion of the doctors or both. In this case, there is no whisper by the witnesses about declaration of any such intention by the accused persons so as to attack them with a view to do away with them (injured persons). In their evidence, P.W. Nos. 5, 6,7, 12 and 15, (the doctors) have also not given any positive evidence about the consequence of the blows and if such injuries were to affect the life of the injured persons. The incised wound caused over the left eyebrow did not go beneath the muscles lair. That itself speaks that there could not have been an intention to kill that injured. Under such circumstances, in this case prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge u/s 307 I.P.C. That being so, conviction of the Appellants u/s 307/149 I.P.C. is set aside. The injuries caused were simple in nature except the injuries on P.W. Nos. 2 and 10, inasmuch as, there was fracture of a finger in the case of P.W.2 and there was fracture of patella of the knee of P.W.10. Thus, considering the genesis of the occurrence and the injuries sustained by the accused persons, they are fond guilty of the offence under Sections 323/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. Their conviction for the offence u/s 148, I.P.C. is also maintained. 10. It is stated at the Bar that accused persons were inside the jail custody for 15 days after the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court and before they were permitted to go on bail by this Court. 10. It is stated at the Bar that accused persons were inside the jail custody for 15 days after the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court and before they were permitted to go on bail by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argues that the occurrence having taken place in June, 1987, a substantive sentence after twenty years would cause serious difficulties and, therefore, lenient view may be taken and sentence of fine may be imposed. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel however rightly argues that so far as the offence u/s 325, I.P.C. is concerned, there cannot alone be a sentence of fine. 11. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid conviction of the Appellants, each of the Appellants is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) for the offence u/s 148, I.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Similarly, each of the Appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred) for the offence u/s 323/149, I.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Each of the Appellants is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each for the offence u/s 325/149, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The aforesaid period of detention be calculated towards the substantive sentence. 12. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part by setting aside the order of conviction u/s 307/149, I.P.C. and finding the Appellants guilty of the offence under Sections 148, 323/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. and imposing the sentence in the above indicated manner.