Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against conviction of the two appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each or in default simple imprisonment for 3 months imposed upon them by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial 77 of 2003 before him. 2. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellants, are as under : On 3-2-2003 at about 9 to 9.30 p.m., victim Nandu was chitchatting on a platform in front of his house with his friends. Just as they were laughing, the two appellants returning from their field, felt that the victim was laughing at them. An altercation ensued. The victim was dragged from platform. Appellant No.2 caught the victim and appellant No.1 inflicted a blow by sickle on victim's abdomen pulling out his intestines. His cries attracted his mother and brother. The appellants allegedly also assaulted victim's mother Lilabai. The victim was taken to Chandur Bazar Police Station, where he lodged a report and was referred to Medical Officer, who, upon examination, referred him to Civil Hospital, Amravati. 3. Police performed panchanama of spot, seized blood stained earth from the spot, recorded statements of witnesses, sent articles seized to the Laboratory, collected medical certificates as also reports from the Laboratory, and on completion of investigation, filed chargesheet. Upon commitment of the case by the learned Judicial Magistrate First, Chandur Bazar, the appellants were charged of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial, at which the prosecution examined nine witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused was that in fact he was beaten up and had lodged a report leading to filing of a counter case in which Nandu and his brother Kishore were the accused. After considering the evidence in light of defence taken, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants of offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (for allegedly causing hurt to Lilabai), but convicted them for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred this appeal. 4. Aggrieved thereby, they have preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard both Shri Amol S. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident occurred all of a sudden and that in fact the appellants were attacked by Nandu and kishore. Kishore was examined as PW 1. He states that on the incidental evening, he was sitting on a platform near the house of his uncle Nandu, along with Nandu, Bandu and Subhash. Both the appellants were coming from path coming by Borala. The appellants felt that they were talking about and laughing at the appellants. All of a sudden, appellant No.1 Baban struck Nandu's abdomen with a sickle, Pulling out intestines. His cries attracted Nandu's mother and Sanju. Appellant No.2 Tushar hit Nandu's mother Lilabai with fists and kicks. Both the accused then ran away. His crossexamination revealed that though he claimed to have stated to police that they were on platform of Nandu's house, and that Nandu's intestines came out or had named Tushar, he could not explain why these aspects were missing in his statement. He admitted that Baburao, Sanjay and Nandu were facing charge of assaulting the appellants, but denied that the trio had beaten the appellants in front of Gram Panchayat. He proved his reports Exhibits 25 and 26 to the police. 6. PW 5 Nandu, the victim, stated about the incident on the same lines. He stated that appellant No.1 caught his shirt and dragged him from the platform and then inflicted a blow by sickle on the left side of his stomach (abdomen) as appellant No.2 held him. He states that his cries attracted his mother, brother and sister-in-law. He fell down. The appellants ran away. He was then taken to the hospital at Chandur Bazar and later to Civil Hospital, Amravati, where he was admitted for 27 days. He identified his blood stained clothes, which had been seized by the police. In cross-examination, he denied that he had abused and beaten appellant No.1 due to village politics. He admitted that he got down from the platform as the accused asked him to come to the accused. He identified his blood stained clothes, which had been seized by the police. In cross-examination, he denied that he had abused and beaten appellant No.1 due to village politics. He admitted that he got down from the platform as the accused asked him to come to the accused. He denied the suggestion that in course of his assault on appellant No.1, he fell on a piece of glass and sustained bleeding injury. 7. PW 6 Bandu states that he was sitting with PW 1 Kishore and PW 5 Nandu on platform in front of Nandu's house, joking and laughing. He claims to have gone home to take meals, when he heard commotion. He came to the spot and found Nandu lying in injured condition. Nandu's intestines had come out. Nandu was then taken to hospital. 8. PW 7 Lilabai, mother of Nandu, too reached on hearing commotion and saw that appellant No.2 caught Nandu and appellant No.1 inflicted a sickle blow on Nandu's abdomen. She states that when she tried to intervene, appellant No.2 pushed her aside. She fell down and was injured. She denied that the incident took place in front of Gram Panchayat, but could not explain as to why her statement to police did not mention that appellant No.2 had held Nandu. 9. Though an attempt was made to show that the incident occurred in front of Gram Panchayat, PW 2 Riyajuddin states that while performing panchanama of spot Exhibit 29 in his presence, police seized blood stains on cotton swab from the spot vide Exhibit 30. His admission in cross that there are several cases against his son, does not discredit his testimony. 10. PW 9 PSI Mohd. Said, who conducted investigation, too stated about spot panchanama Exhibit 29 and seizure of blood stains on cotton swab vide Exhibit 30. He stated that he caused blood sample of the victim to be collected and seized it vide Exhibit 39. He caused blood group of both the accused to be ascertained by the Medical Officer vide requisition Exhibit 54 and the Medical Officer informed that blood group of both the accused was A Rh +ve. He had sent incriminating articles to forensic Science Laboratory vide requisition Exhibit 57 and the Laboratory sent reports, which are at Exhibits 58 to 61. He caused blood group of both the accused to be ascertained by the Medical Officer vide requisition Exhibit 54 and the Medical Officer informed that blood group of both the accused was A Rh +ve. He had sent incriminating articles to forensic Science Laboratory vide requisition Exhibit 57 and the Laboratory sent reports, which are at Exhibits 58 to 61. In view of this, the attempt to shift the spot elsewhere to brand victims as aggressors cannot succeed. 11. The appellants admit that they had an exchange with the victim and yet claim that the victim was injured as he fell on a piece of glass. 12. PW 8 Dr. Ruprao Yeole, who examined Nandu on 3-2- 2003 at Rural Hospital Chandur Bazar, stated that he observed the following five injures on Nandu : 1) Incised wound over the digital phalanx of middle finger of right hand, 1. x ¼. x ¼.. 2) Incised wound over right ring finger of distal phalanx, ½. x ¼. x ¼.. 3) Incised wound over web left side in between the thumb and index finger, size 2. x ¼. x ¼.. 4) Incised wound over left thumb, size 2. x ¼. x ¼.. 5) Stab injury over the left side of abdomen with intestine loopes comes out for which the patient is referred to General Hospital, Amravati.. He stated that the injuries were caused due to sharp edged object. He proved his certificate at Exhibit 48. He stated that injury No.5 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, though he had not so recorded in his certificate. He admitted that injury No.5 was possible if a person fell on a sharp edged and pointed piece of glass. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this admission by the Medical Officer strengthens the defence version as to how the incident could have occurred. He pointed out that the Investigating Officer PW 9 PSI Mohd Said denied knowledge if any broken piece of glass with blood stains was lying in front of Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Investigating Officer PW 9 Mohd Said had admitted in cross-examination that when he arrested the accused persons, they had injuries. According to the learned counsel, these injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly submitted that this was not correct. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Investigating Officer PW 9 Mohd Said had admitted in cross-examination that when he arrested the accused persons, they had injuries. According to the learned counsel, these injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly submitted that this was not correct. He pointed out that when others were attracted by the victim's cries, the appellants took to heels and in the process, appellant No.1 fell on a drain and injured his forehead. This had been stated by PW 1 Kishore in his examination-in-chief itself. Therefore, so-called unexplained injuries on the appellants do not help them to extricate themselves from their involvement. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also rightly pointed out that mere acceptance of a possibility by a Medical Officer does not turn it into a probability. To turn it into probability, it would have to be shown that there were pieces of glass at the spot. Possibility indicated by the Medical Officer is a mere academic possibility and not a practical possibility. Therefore, this need not adversely influence prosecution case. Likewise, though the Medical Officer had not stated in his certificate that injury No.5 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, his word on oath cannot be discarded. In any case, the certificate clearly shows that intestine loops had come out, indicating that the conclusion of the Medical Officer is correct. 16. Relying on a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Balu s/o Tukaram Kusalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1358, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that injury was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, since the victim had received immediate medical treatment. In that case, the Medical Officers had stated that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death if it remained untreated for a long time, i.e. time of 24 to 48 hours. The learned Judge held in para 12 as under : 12. ... From the medical evidence it can be seen that the injury was of such a nature that if it was treated within reasonable time, it was not likely to cause the death of the complainant. The learned Judge held in para 12 as under : 12. ... From the medical evidence it can be seen that the injury was of such a nature that if it was treated within reasonable time, it was not likely to cause the death of the complainant. I, therefore, find that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had an intention to cause death of the complainant. So also the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of the victim was attempted. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the act was done with an intention of causing such bodily injury which the appellant knew to be likely to cause death or in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. .... 17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that medical intervention was irrelevant for guaging the nature of injury in order to attribute necessary criminal intention. For this purpose, he drew my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kishore Singh and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1977 SC 2267. In that case, death had occurred one month after the assault. In that context in para 14 of the judgment, the Court held as under : 14. ... The court will have to judge objectively from the nature of the injuries and other evidence, including the medical opinion, as to whether the injuries intentionally inflicted by the appellants on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In judging whether the injuries inflicted are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the possibility that skilful and efficient medical treatment might prevent the fatal result is wholly irrelevant.. However, considering the hesitant medical opinion by three doctors therein, the Court converted conviction to one under Section 304 Part I of the Penal Code. Considering this, the question whether medical treatment would have avoided death is not relevant. 18. In this case, apart from eye witnesses, the prosecution has also examined PW 3 Syed Mujaffar, who states about discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of sickle at the instance of appellant No.1 after appellant No.1 made such a disclosure, which was recorded vide Exhibit 34. The sickle was seized vide Exhibit 35. 18. In this case, apart from eye witnesses, the prosecution has also examined PW 3 Syed Mujaffar, who states about discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of sickle at the instance of appellant No.1 after appellant No.1 made such a disclosure, which was recorded vide Exhibit 34. The sickle was seized vide Exhibit 35. PW 4 Khalil Baig stated about seizure of clothes of appellant No.1 vide Exhibit 37 and a shirt of appellant No.2 vide Exhibit 38. PW 8 PSI Mohd Said admitted that he had not obtained signatures of appellant No.1 on memorandum Exhibit 34 and seizure memo Exhibit 35. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that absence of signature or thumb impression of accused on these documents render such statements unreliable as held by the Supreme Court in Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1995 SC 2345 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew my attention to judgment of Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and others, reported at 1999 Cri.L.J. 2588. In that case, the Investigating Officer had obtained signatures of the accused on seizure memos. It was contended that this vitiated seizure in view of the provisions of Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure. The Supreme Court held that prohibition contained in Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to proceedings taken under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In para 30, it held that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain signature of the accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But if signature is obtained by the Investigating Officer, there is nothing illegal about it. Judgment in Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab was, however, not noticed while deciding State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram and others. 19. In the present case, it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether memorandum made and seizure effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act require signature of the accused or not, since in this case this seizure is just an additional piece of evidence to connect the appellant to crime. The case is based on eye-witness account of the incident. The case is based on eye-witness account of the incident. In an appropriate case based on circumstantial evidence, the apparent contradiction in the above two judgments of the Supreme Court could be reconciled. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident, even according to prosecution witnesses, occurred all of a sudden and, therefore, requisite intention or knowledge to attract Section 307 of the Penal Code was lacking. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly pointed out that conclusions about intention or knowledge do not depend on whether the attack was premediated, well-prepared or spontaneous. It may be relevant as an aggrevating or mitigating circumstance. The requisite guilty intention would have to be gathered from the manner in which the act was performed. 21. Reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants on judgment of Supreme Court in Hari Kishan and State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, reported at AIR 1988 SC 2127 , is unhelpful, since in that case the Court held that the accused, though armed with a ballam, never used the sharp edge. They used the blunt side, despite they being attacked by the other side. Using blunt side when option to use sharp edge was available would itself rule out intention to inflict a fatal injury. Such is not the present case. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that seriousness of injuries in themselves cannot lead to the conclusion that offence of attempt to commit murder is made out. For this purpose, he relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Dharma Pal and others Vs. State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1993 SC 2484 . I have gone through the judgment. It has to be remembered that in these matters, all the judgments depend on facts unfolded and there cannot be a fixed formula or a rule emerging as to the relation of degree of injury and with intention to be attributed. 23. All the same, bearing in mind the observations in judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, I would approach the facts unfolded. Complicity of appellant No.2 in the assault on PW 5 Nandu has to be ruled out. It may be seen that in the sequence which he deposed to, there is a conspicuous absence of reference to accused No.2 in paras 1 to 3. Complicity of appellant No.2 in the assault on PW 5 Nandu has to be ruled out. It may be seen that in the sequence which he deposed to, there is a conspicuous absence of reference to accused No.2 in paras 1 to 3. He states that appellant No.2 held him only in para 4 of this deposition. It seems that the story which he gave before the Executive Magistrate attributed injuries by axe by appellant No.2. He could not explain why the fact that appellant No.2 held him is missing from his statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate. 24. Even the eyewitnesses account of PW 1 Kishore does not speak of role of appellant No.2 in assault on PW 5 Nandu. He states that appellant No.2 assaulted PW 7 Lilabai (for which charge the accused have been acquitted). PW 7 Lilabai stated that appellant No.2 had caught hold of PW 5 Nandu, but could not explain why this fact was missing from her police statement. Hence, involvement of appellant No.2 Tushar is doubtful. His conviction cannot be sustained. 25. Even if the manner in which the incident took place as described by Pws 1 Kishore, 5 Nandu and 7 Lilabai is accepted as it is, it would have to be held that appellant No.1 was suddently infuriated and launched the assault with a sickle, an agricultural implement, which was available to him. Therefore, rather than attributing to him the intention of attempting to murder PW 5 Nandu, it would be enough to hold that the intention was to inflict a grievous hurt. Nandu was hospitalized for 27 days, a fact which is not disputed. Sickle is a weapon of cutting. Therefore, it would have to be held that appellant caused grievous hurt to PW 5 Nandu with an instrument of cutting and thus committed offence punishable under Section 326 of the Penal Code. 26. This takes me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of appellant No.1. He is now 59 years old and is suffering from cancer and, therefore had been bailed out. Incident occurred due to a sudden flare up. Before the trial, appellant No.1 was in jail from 4-2-2003 to 19-3-2003, i.e. for about one and half month. He might have been taken in custody upon conviction on 1-6-2006. He is now 59 years old and is suffering from cancer and, therefore had been bailed out. Incident occurred due to a sudden flare up. Before the trial, appellant No.1 was in jail from 4-2-2003 to 19-3-2003, i.e. for about one and half month. He might have been taken in custody upon conviction on 1-6-2006. His application for suspension of sentence was rejected on 25-9-2006, but he was admitted to temporary bail on 10-9-2007 (i.e. after about an year) to enable him to take treatment for cancer and is on bail since then. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of this, sentence may be reduced to that already undergone and fine amount may be increased. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the sentence is commensurate to the crime. 27. Considering absence of previous criminal history, absence of premediated assault and the ailment from which the appellant suffers, it may be appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence to that already undergone, while increasing amount of fine to Rs.50,000/-. 28. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. Conviction of both the appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentence of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each imposed upon them is set aside. Appellant No.2 is acquitted of offences charged. Appellant No.1 is convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer RI for the period for which he has already been in custody and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) or in default suffer SI for six months. Upon payment of fine, a sum of Rs.45,000/- be paid to PW 5 Nandu as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeal partly allowed.