JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C. No. 188 of 1996 by judgment dated 9th December, 2003 convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5-5-1994 at about 10 a.m., it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellants within the limits of Srinivasapura Police Station at Mulbagal-Srinivasapura Road, near Kethaganahalli, in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder of Smt. Shanthamma-C.W. 1, Thimmaiah-C.W. 3 and Ravichandra-C.W. 3 wrongfully restrained the bus bearing No. MEF 6290 in which the injured party was travelling and made them forcibly get down from the bus and voluntarily caused hurt by deadly weapons like ‘machchu’ and ‘knife’ with the intention of causing their death, thereby the appellants were alleged to have committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. After registration of FIR, the appellants surrendered before the police by securing an order of anticipatory bail and they were released on bail. The police after investigation, filed charge-sheet and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. Before the Sessions Court, in order to prove the offence, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P. 11 and produced M.Os. 1 to 4. The defence got marked Exs. D. 1 to D.7 from the statement of P.W. 3 in their defence. The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 regarding their participation in the crime and their case is one of total denial. Thereafter, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard Smt. Nalina K for the appellants and Sri Ramakrishna, High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 6. Thereafter, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard Smt. Nalina K for the appellants and Sri Ramakrishna, High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined one Shanthamma-P.W 1 who is the complainant. It is in her evidence that on the date of offence, she and her husband and her brother’s son were traveling in the bus from their village to Kolar. When the bus reached Kolar, the accused/appellants and one Rajanna started fighting with their husband. Thereafter, they stopped the bus and made her husband to get down from the bus. At that time, the 2nd accused Seenappa assaulted Ravichandra with the knife on his chest and arm. P.W. 1 has stated that the 4th accused assaulted her son with knife and she does not know as to which part he was assaulted. She has further stated that the 3rd accused also assaulted her brother’s son, but she has not seen as to what was in their hands. It is the further case of P.W. 1 injured that one Nagaraj assaulted her husband by ‘macchu’ on his heels and 1st accused assaulted on her arm. Thereafter, 1st accused came inside the bus and assaulted her. There were 200 persons in the bus. After some time, they left the bus and she was taken to the hospital and there, she gave a complaint to the police and they came to the hospital. She has identified ‘macchu’ which was in the hands of one Nagaraj and the knife which was in the hand of 2nd accused and another knife in the hand of 4th accused. 7. P.W. 2-Thimmaiah who is husband of P.W 1 has stated in the evidence that on the date of incident, the accused made the bus stopped near Kethaganahalli and the 1st accused assaulted him on his right leg with ‘macchu’. Thereafter, Rajagopal also assaulted him on his right thigh with knife. When P.W. 1-Shanthamma, his wife came to his rescue, 1st accused also assaulted her. Thereafter, he has not seen as to what has happened and they went to the hospital and took treatment. 8. Thereafter, Rajagopal also assaulted him on his right thigh with knife. When P.W. 1-Shanthamma, his wife came to his rescue, 1st accused also assaulted her. Thereafter, he has not seen as to what has happened and they went to the hospital and took treatment. 8. P.W. 3 has also stated that on the date of the incident when the bus came near Kethaganahalli at about 10.35 a.m., 1st accused assaulted him on his nose with a knife. He has also assaulted him on the right side of his chest and left arm. Accused 2 to 4 caught hold of him and 1st accused assaulted him with a stone. Then accused 5 assaulted him on his chest and other parts with knife. The other eye-witnesses in the case viz., P.W. 7-Venkatareddy, P.W. 11-Venkatashreddy, P.W. 12-Nagarajagowda and P.W. 13-Ramappa have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 9. P.W. 4 is Dr. D.S. Guptha who has examined the injured Thimmappa and Ravichandra. He has stated that on 5-5-1995 at about 12 noon, one Thimmappa came to the hospital with the history if assault, with a chopper by Narayanaswamy at 10 a.m. and that he noticed the following five injuries on his person: “(1) cut injury x” x ½” into muscle deep on the right leg in the lower 1/3rd; (2) another cut injury 2” above the right leg, lateral malulous, 1 ½” x ½” into subcutaneous deep; (3) heal of the right leg most of it cut and separated; (4) cut injury on the right upper arm on the lateral side 4” above the right elbow 1” x ½” into muscle deep; (5) fracture of right Tibia and Fracture Fibula right X-ray No. 3625, dated 6-5-1995”. He has opined that injuries 1 and 2 above are grievous and injuries 3 and 4 are simple in nature and he has issued the wound certificate-Ex.P.2. 10. P.W. 4 has further stated that on the same day, he examined one Ravichandra who came to him with the history of assault by one Rajagopal with knife and he noticed the following injures: “1. stab injury on the right side of the Chest 1” x ½” depth not known, ½” medial and slightly above the right nipple; 2. stab injury on the left upper arm, 1” x 3/4th, two in number – one by the side of other, through and through upto muscle deep; 3. stab injury on the right side of the Chest 1” x ½” depth not known, ½” medial and slightly above the right nipple; 2. stab injury on the left upper arm, 1” x 3/4th, two in number – one by the side of other, through and through upto muscle deep; 3. incised skin deep injury 1 1/2 “ x 1/8th in the mid-line on the back of the chest”. He has opined that the above injuries are simple in nature. 11. P.W. 5-K V. Narayanaswamy is an attestor to the mahazar Ex. P. 4 who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, so also P.W. 6-K. Ramakrishnareddy. P.W. 8-C. Narayanappa, is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police who has received the wound certificate and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. P.W. 9 is the investigating officer who has conducted investigation in this case. 12. P.W. 10 is Dr. Melinamani has examined P.W 1-Shanthamma who appeared before him with the history of assault. He found the following injuries on the person of Shanthamma: “1. contusion over the right wrist measuring 1” x 2”; 2. tenderness lower 1/3rd wrist on the ulnar aspect; 3. tenderness over the right shoulder. Shoulder movements restricted and painful”. He has opined that the injuries found in P.W 1-Shanthamma are simple in nature and he has issued the wound certificate-Ex. P.6. 13. Now, it has to be seen whether the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge against the appellants is proper and based on sound principles of law and on facts. 14. It is seen that enmity between the injured party and the accused party is political in nature and it is in the evidence of P.W.1, so also P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that the injured party belongs to Congress and appellants belongs to Janatha Party and this is the reason why the incident has taken place. There is no personal enmity between the parties and nowhere in the complaint. P.W. 1 has alleged that the accused wanted to do away with the life of the complainant-P.W. 1 and two other injured persons. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 does not indicate that there was any intention or any motive for the accused to assault P.Ws. 1 to 3 except the political rivalry. P.W. 1 has alleged that the accused wanted to do away with the life of the complainant-P.W. 1 and two other injured persons. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 does not indicate that there was any intention or any motive for the accused to assault P.Ws. 1 to 3 except the political rivalry. Therefore, on this ground alone, it can be said that there was no intention nor motive for the accused to commit murder of the injured person in order to attract Section 307 of the IPC. Further if one looks at the nature of injuries on the person of P.Ws. 1 to 3, all the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body, none of them are individually or collectively likely to cause danger to the life of the injured persons. In this view of the matter, the intention of the accused persons to commit murder of the injured is not at all made out. Hence, I hold that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has not been made out against the accused persons and therefore, I acquit the accused/appellants of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 15. Having said so, now I have to look as to what offence that could be made out against the appellants, if so against whom. It can be seen from the wound certificate-Ex. P. 2 that the name of only accused 1 has been mentioned therein as the person who has caused assault on the injured Thimmaiah. So far as the names of other persons are concerned, it does not find place in Ex. P. 2. On this count alone, the benefit of doubt can be extended to accused 2, 3 and 4. 16. Even the wound certificate-Ex. P. 3 contains the history of assault with knife by Rajagopal and this Rajagopal is not an accused in this case. Out of six accused persons found in the FIR, the name of Rajagopal does not find a place in it. However, the name of Narayanaswamy is very specific in this case and also the overtacts alleged against him has been mentioned in the FIR, the weapon used is also noted in the wound certificate. Therefore, one can safely came to the conclusion that the accused Narayanaswamy’s presence and participation in the Commission of offence has been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 17. Therefore, one can safely came to the conclusion that the accused Narayanaswamy’s presence and participation in the Commission of offence has been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 17. Now we have to see as to what offence has been committed by accused 1/appellant 1. P.W. 4-Dr. D.S. Gupta states that injuries 1 and 2 in the wound certificate issued by him at Ex. P. 2 are grievous in nature. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that injury 3 found on the person of P.W. 2 to the heal of the right, leg, most of it cut and separate amounts to a grievous injury and that cutting part of body or emasculation comes within the definition of grievous “hurt” as per Section 320 of the IPC. Therefore, the offence committed by appellant 1-Narayanaswamy falls fully within the definition of Section 320 of the IPC punishable under Section 326 of the IPC, having regard to the nature of weapon M.O. 1 used by appellant 1. Therefore, I hold that appellant 1 is guilty of offence under Section 326 of the IPC. 18. Heard Smt. Nalina regarding sentence to be imposed on appellant 1. It is stated that appellant 1 is aged about 60 years and he has got his wife and children and aged mother, who are depending on his income. It is stated that he has not been convicted so far and he is a first offender. Hence, she prays for a lenient view. However, having regard to the nature of weapon and als the act of stopping the bus and cutting the leg by sharp weapon, taking a very lenient view would have the effect giving wrong signal to the society. Therefore, having regard to the interest of accused 1, his age and antecedents and also interest of the society. I deem it fit to impose sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is modified, in that appeal filed by appellants 2 to 4 is allowed and their conviction is set aside. 10,000/- in default, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is modified, in that appeal filed by appellants 2 to 4 is allowed and their conviction is set aside. Accused 1 is convicted for offence under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default, simple imprisonment for six months. The fine, if any, paid by appellants 2 to 4 shall be refunded to them and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appellant 1 to surrender for serving the sentences imposed on him as per this order. The fine amount, if recovered, shall be paid to P.W. 2-Thimmaiah.