Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30. 9. 1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, multai, District Betul in Sessions Trial No. 235/1998 convicting each of the appellant under Section 307/34 I. P. C. sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one year have filed this appeal. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 22. 4. 1998 at about 8. 00 p. m victim Pintu (P. W. 1) had gone on the public tap/hand pump to fetch water, accused Charanjit Singh was mishandling the hand pump, seeing that the complainant asked him not to spoil or damage the pump, the accused taking an exception to the same took out a knife and caused injuries to the victim. Immediately thereafter Surjit Singh, brother of the accused and Shankar Singh, father of the accused came on the spot caught hold of the victim Pintu @ virendra, gave him some beating and also exhorted to kill him. On that accused Charanjit Singh caused further injury to the victim on his head thereafter, on intervention of some persons the victim could be saved. The matter was reported to police, the victim was referred to the hospital for examination and repair of his injuries, panchanamas were prepared, arrests were made and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were prosecuted and on completion of the trial they were convicted and sentenced as referred to above. ( 3. ) SHRI Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, after taking me through the statements of P. W. 1 Pintu submitted that the accused persons were not known to the victim, therefore, in absence of a test identification parade the accused persons could not be convicted. ( 4. ) IN the opinion of this Court the argument runs contrary to the evidence available on record. The victim has nowhere said that he could not identify the accused persons. In fact in paragraph 6 of his statement, he has stated that names of the accused persons were informed to him subsequently. In the cross examination it has not been suggested to him that because of the dark of the night he could not identify the accused persons. In fact in paragraph 6 of his statement, he has stated that names of the accused persons were informed to him subsequently. In the cross examination it has not been suggested to him that because of the dark of the night he could not identify the accused persons. In paragraph 4 of the cross examination when it was suggested to him that there was absolute darkness, he had said that though it was dark but for providing light the halogen lamps were available. He has also stated that he was taken to the hospital where his injuries were repaired. ( 5. ) IT was then submitted that except catching hold of the victim no overt act has been attributed against Shankar Singh and Surjit Singh and as they had no common intention these accused persons could not be convicted under Section 307 i. P. C. ( 6. ) IN the First Information Report (Ex. P/3) the victim had stated that these two accused persons came to the spot, had caught hold of him, gave him a thrashing and thereafter exhorted as a result of which accused Charanjit Singh caused further injuries to the victim. However, in the court statement it is simply stated by him that after Charanjit singh had caused him injury these two persons came on the spot, caught hold of him and at that point of time Charanjit singh caused him further injury. ( 7. ) IT is submitted by Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, that it is but natural for the relations after seeing some grappling or fighting that they would run to the spot and would try to protect their own relation and would prevent the other person from causing any injury to their relation. It is submitted that in the present case if there was some miscalculation on the part of these accused persons then common intention cannot be gathered. ( 8. ) UNDISPUTEDLY the accused Charanjit Singh did not call for any help rather it would appear that after seeing that some altercation was going on the other two accused came to the spot and caught hold of the victim. It is not on the record that they had shared the common intention or facilitated the main accused Charanjit Singh to cause injury to the victim. ( 9. It is not on the record that they had shared the common intention or facilitated the main accused Charanjit Singh to cause injury to the victim. ( 9. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I hold that accused Shankar Singh and Surjit singh deserve to be acquitted. They are accordingly acquitted. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Fine amount if any deposited by them be returned. ( 10. ) FOR the reasons stated aforesaid the appeal filed by charanjit Singh is dismissed. Present is not a case even for reduction of the jail sentence because the accused for no fault on the part of the victim had caused him number of the injuries which according to the doctor were grievous in nature and dangerous to life. His appeal is dismissed. The appellant charanjit Singh is on bail. His bail bond is canceled. He shall surrender before the learned C. J. M. Betul on or before 17. 8. 2009. On his surrender he shall be immediately taken into custody and would be consigned to jail for undergoing the sentence but in case he does not surrender then the personal bond and the surety bond furnished by the accused shall stand forfeited, the learned C. J. M shall proceed to recover the amount of the bond from the property of the accused person and the surety and shall issue non-bailable warrant to secure attendance of the accused person for undergoing the sentence.