JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-9-2004 passed in S.C. No. 245 of 2001 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, convicting the appellants of the offence under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and further sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 4-Mahesh and P.W. 10 belong to Janata Dal and accused belong to Congress party prior to 1999 General Elections. Thereafter, P.W. 4 was supporting one Shankarappa who belongs to Congress party whereas accused still to continue in Janata Dal party. In 2000 elections to the Village Panchayat, three persons from accused group and three persons from injured group contested for panchayat election and two each of them have won the election. It is stated that this political enmity between the two groups is the cause for this incident. It is stated further on 14-3-2000 when P.W. 4 was going on his moped, the moped went out of order at Channarayapatna cross. Therefore, he reached the garage of C.W. 4 and while he was sitting all the three appellants came from Channarayapatna cross holding machchu in their hands and out of three, 1st appellant made an attempt to assault him with machchu on hand. When he tried to evade and ran away from that place, towards Basavanakunte, at that time the accused persons chased him for a distance of about one and half furlong when he was fully exhausted and fell down near a manure pit. At that time, Accused 1 to 3 came and assaulted him indiscriminately over the head, hand and other parts of the body by means of machchu and thereafter he was taken to the hospital by one Rajanna. At that time, Accused 1 to 3 came and assaulted him indiscriminately over the head, hand and other parts of the body by means of machchu and thereafter he was taken to the hospital by one Rajanna. When he reached the hospital, the police also came there at about 2.30 p.m. and a complaint was recorded from him in Baptist hospital in the presence of the doctor and a case in Crime No. 26 of 2000 for an offence under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC came to be registered and investigation commenced. 3. The police during the investigation have recovered a machchu and also recorded the statement of witnesses, collected evidence, received the wound certificates and filed charge-sheet before the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after committal, in order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 15 witness and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 29, produced material objects M.Os. 1 to 13 including M.Os. 5 to 7 which are the weapons alleged to have been used by the appellants to assault P.W. 4. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above. 5. Heard Sri HS. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the appellants and Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material carefully. 6. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1-Venkateshappa who knows the accused 1 to 3 and hails from the same village that is Baluvanahalli. He is a signatory to the panchanama dated 15-3-2000 marked as Ex. P. 1. However, he has been treated hostile to the prosecution case. P.W. 2-M. Ramesh is also a signatory to Exs. P. 1 to P. 2 spot panchanama however, he has also been treated hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W. 3 is the witness to the panchanama for recovering the weapons but he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 7. P.W. 4 is the injured in this case. He has reiterated what has been stated in the FIR, but has further narrated the incident in detail as to what exactly happened on that day. He received injuries from the hands of accused 1 to 3. He has attributed overtacts in respect of all the three appellants. 7. P.W. 4 is the injured in this case. He has reiterated what has been stated in the FIR, but has further narrated the incident in detail as to what exactly happened on that day. He received injuries from the hands of accused 1 to 3. He has attributed overtacts in respect of all the three appellants. Further, he has stated that the appellants had tried to assault him on his head with machchu. Further they had assaulted him on his forearm and also on the left side of the head. This witness has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. 8. P.W. 5-Hinayath Pasha, has also been treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 6 is Dr. Alfred Cyril Roy, Assistant Orthopedic Surgeon, in Baptist Hospital, who has stated that on 14-3-2000 at 1.30 p.m., one Mahesh was brought for treatment and on examining him, he found the following injuries on the person of Mahesh: 1. Multiple lacerations of face and scalp involving left temporal and occipital areas. 2. Near/total avulsion of left Pinna. 3. Fracture left Zigoma. 4. Left temporal love contusion. 5. Left facial nerve injury. 6. Left mas setter muscle and left lateral rectus muscle injury. 7. Compound fracture of both bones of left arm with laceration of all extensor muscles with nerve and artery injury. He has further opined that injuries 1 to 5 and 7 are grievous in nature and injury No.6 is simple in nature and that P.W. 4 was an inpatient in the hospital between 14-3-2000 and 8-4-2000. P.W. 6 has further given the details of the treatment given to P.W. 4. He has further opined, injuries suffered by P.W. 4 were fresh and same could be caused by the weapon like M.Os. 5 to 7. P.W. 7 is Dr. A.V.S. Srikanth, who is a doctor, from Baptist Hospital. He has almost reiterated the evidence spoken to by P.W. 6. P.W. 8 is the retired ASI of Vijayapura Police Station who has stated that he rushed to the spot on receipt of telephone call regarding the incident and he took the injured Mahesh to the hospital. He has recorded Ex. P. 4 the complaint in the presence of the doctor and registered the case in Crime No. 26 of 2000 for the offences mentioned above. 9. He has recorded Ex. P. 4 the complaint in the presence of the doctor and registered the case in Crime No. 26 of 2000 for the offences mentioned above. 9. P.W. 9-Manjunath, is the Police Constable who has shifted the injured to the hospital and he is scribe to Ex. P. 4. P.W. 10 Rajanna is another eye-witness to the incident and he has narrated in his evidence the assault by the appellants on P.W. 4. It has been elicited in his examination-in-chief that if he had not reached the spot, the accused would have killed P.W. 4. 10. P.W. 11-Ghouse Peer is treated hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 12-Shankarappa, has been examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery of weapons, M.Os. 5 to 7 as per Ex. P. 3. 11. P.W. 13 is the Police Constable who has carried the materials to the FSL and has brought back and handed over it to the investigation officer. P.W. 14 is the PSI who took the case for further investigation on 5-2-2000 and conducted part of investigation and recorded the statement of certain witnesses and handed over the investigation to Mr. Krishnaiah, the PSI, Law and Order. P.W. 15 is the PSI, who has further investigated the matter and prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it to the Court. 12. The accused have been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and subsequently after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 13. After giving a careful thought on the evidence of record, particularly having regard to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 10 and also the evidence of doctors P.Ws. 6 and 7, I am of the opinion that it cannot be very clearly gathered that accused/appellants had any intention to cause the death of P.W. 4. The nature of injuries that have been caused would not be sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of injured. Even the evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. Alfred Cyril Roy does not indicate that the injuries would have endangered human life nor that there was any danger to the life of P.W. 4 immediately after the injuries caused on him. 14. Even the evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. Alfred Cyril Roy does not indicate that the injuries would have endangered human life nor that there was any danger to the life of P.W. 4 immediately after the injuries caused on him. 14. Further, on a careful perusal of location of injuries on the person of injured P.W. 4, it could be seen that all the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body though injuries are severe in nature but none of the injuries independently or collectively could have caused the death of P.W. 4. Further, enmity shown in the FIR and the evidence of the witnesses does not indicate any political rivalry between the parties but it emanates from the fact that earlier all of them are in Janata Dal and subsequently two of them joined some other party i.e., Congress Party. There would not have any serious enmity to cause the death of P.W. 4 and hence, I hold that Section 307 is not attracted in this case. In the circumstances, I hold that the accused are not guilty of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and acquit them of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 15. Now coming to the nature of injuries and weapons used, the evidence of the witnesses is cogent and clear in establishing that accused have definitely caused grievous injuries on the person of P.W. 4 and the weapons used coupled with the evidence of doctors would clearly establish that they have caused grievous injury by the dangerous weapons attracting Section 326 of the IPC. The evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 10 and the evidence of doctors clearly establish the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and the finding of the Trial Court is very clear in that aspect. The Trial Court has imposed sentence of one year without imposing any sentence of fine. Therefore I confirm the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 16. I heard Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate regarding sentence to be imposed on the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident took place 10 years back and that the appellants have suffered so far by the prosecution. 16. I heard Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate regarding sentence to be imposed on the appellants. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident took place 10 years back and that the appellants have suffered so far by the prosecution. Further, he has submitted that all the three appellants are of young age and their families are depending on their income. In the circumstance, I feel that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of one year is modified to sentence of six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each is imposed on the appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months. The fine amount, if any, deposited in excess what is ordered in this appeal, shall be refunded to the appellants. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- from out of the fine amount shall be paid to P.W. 4 by way of compensation.