JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—All these three appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Stale has filed two appeals, i.e., Crl. A. No. 567/2005 & Crl. A. No. 566/2005 questioning the acquittal of accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and enhancement of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 is also in appeal against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No. 1 alongwith six others stood trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on the charge sheet submitted by the Nanjangud Police in Crime No. 3/99. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.1999 at about 1.45 p.m. at Ediga Mohalla Mosque in Nanjangud all the accused were members of unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Shabeer Khan-P.W. 3 and they committed rioting being armed with deadly weapons and they assaulted P.W. 3 by means of a knife. With such intention and under such circumstances that if by the said act they had caused the death of Shabeer Khan, they would have been guilty of murder and thereby they have committed the offences punishable as stated earlier. Accused Nos. 4 & 5 were apprehended by police on 12.1.1999 and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate and were admitted to bail on 5.2.1999. Accused Nos. 3, 6 & 7 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate on 28.2.2000. They were also admitted to bail. Accused No. 5 remained absent after committal of the case and he was secured under Non Bailable Warrant on 7.6.2004 and remanded to judicial custody and he was once again admitted to bail on 16.4.2004. A charge sheet is filed for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.1999 at about 1.45 p.m. all the accused went to Ediga Mohalla Mosque in Nanjangud and insisted that they propose to deliver a speech on tabalig (which would mean visiting the houses in order to offer prayer in the houses). The injured, i.e., P.W. 3 objected for delivering tabalig speech, since, such speech was not allowed in the Mosque earlier. The injured, i.e., P.W. 3 objected for delivering tabalig speech, since, such speech was not allowed in the Mosque earlier. All the accused were enraged by such serious objection raised by P.W. 3, Accused No. 1. took out a knife from his pocket and assaulted on the abdomen of P.W. 3-Shabeer Khan, while the other accused held P.W. 3. P.W. 3 sustained penetrating injury on the abdomen and he was taken to Government Hospital at Nanjangud by P.W. 2-the complainant. The Doctor at Nanjangud hospital referred him to major hospital at Mysore and he was taken to K.R. Hospital at Mysore in an ambulance. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 3 was operated and was an inpatient for one month. Immediately thereafter, P.W. 2 lodged a complaint at Nanjangud Police Station as a result of which a case has been registered as aforesaid. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and have got marked Exs. P1 to P14. The Doctor who treated P.W. 3, the injured is examined as P.W. 1. He would depose that as on the date of the incident, he was working as a medical officer at Nanjangud Government. Hospital. On 9.1.1999, P.W. 3 was brought to the hospital by PC 1408 and 316 of Nanjangud Town Police Station before him for examination with the history of injury to abdomen by 5 to 6 unknown persons at 2.45 p.m. in the premise of Eidgah. He examined P.W. 3 and on examination he found the following injury: Inverted 7 shaped incised wound in the right Hypochandritum region measuring 3½ cm x ½ to 3/4 cm in. depth. He would state that P.W. 3 was treated and was referred to a bigger hospital for a better treatment. He received a report, from K.R. Hospital after examination. He would state that the injury sustained by P.W. 3 was grievous in nature, as the injury would have resulted in the death of the patient if complication had arisen. The Doctor was cross-examined. But, however, we notice that nothing detrimental to the interest of the prosecution is brought about in the cross-examination. Ex. P2 is marked through P.W. 1. 6. P.W. 2 is the complainant, He would refer to the incident, which had occurred on 9.1.1999 at 1.45 p.m. inasmuch as certain altercation took place between the P.W. 3 and accused Nos. But, however, we notice that nothing detrimental to the interest of the prosecution is brought about in the cross-examination. Ex. P2 is marked through P.W. 1. 6. P.W. 2 is the complainant, He would refer to the incident, which had occurred on 9.1.1999 at 1.45 p.m. inasmuch as certain altercation took place between the P.W. 3 and accused Nos. 1 to 7 as to the delivery of Tabalig speech. The prosecution case is that said action of accused Nos. 1 to 7 was objected to by P.W. 3 and accused No. I. took out a folding knife from his pocket and assaulted P.W. 3 on his abdomen. He would also depose that while accused No. 1 was assaulting P.W. 3 the remaining six accused held him. P.W. 2 would depose that immediately after the assault he took P.W. 8 to the hospital and thereafter took him to a bigger hospital at Mysore in an ambulance. He also deposes that immediately after getting P.W. 3 admitted to the bigger hospital he returned to Nanjangud and lodged a complaint and the complaint is registered on 9.1.1999 at 6.30 p.m. The cross-examination of this witness also does not disclose anything, which is detrimental to the interest of the prosecution. During the course of deposition and on cross-examination P.W. 2 would depose that accused No. 1 was armed with knife and he took the knife alongwith him. He would also identify M.O. No. 1, which is seized pursuant, to a mahazar. A suggestion was made to him that accused No. 1 did not assault P.W. 3, But, however, the said suggestion has been denied. P.W. 3 is the injured witness. He would depose that he knows the accused. On 9.1.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. he was in the Mosque inasmuch as he had gone there to offer prayers. All the accused came to the mosque and insisted that they would perform Tabalig, which was seriously objected to by him inasmuch as Tabalig is not performed in the Mosque. The accused No. 1 was enraged and took out a knife and assaulted him on the abdomen. He would also depose that thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Nanjangud in a jeep and was referred to a better hospital at Mysore. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the assault took place only after P.W. 3 offered his prayers. He would also depose that thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Nanjangud in a jeep and was referred to a better hospital at Mysore. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the assault took place only after P.W. 3 offered his prayers. The duration of altercation between the accused as well as the injured was for about 10 minutes. He would also admit that he is neither the Muthuvali nor the Secretary of the Mosque. He would identify M.O. No. 1 from which he was assaulted. He would depose that the assault has taken place when both the accused No. 1 as well as he were facing each other. He would also depose that accused No. 1 assaulted him only once. He would also state that he was in the hospital till the end of January from the date of incident. P.W. 4 is an eye-witness to the incident inasmuch as on the date of incident P.W. 4 had gone to the Mosque to offer prayers. He would also refer to the accused insisting on performing Tabalig, which was objected by P.W. 3 and altercation took place and accused No. 1 was enraged and took out a knife and assaulted P.W. 3 on the abdomen. He would also reiterate that P.W. 3 was admitted to hospital and later on shifted to Mysore for better treatment P.W. 5 is a witness to seizure of blood stained clothes. The seizure mahazar is marked at Ex. P5. P.W. 6 is the witness for seizure of M.O. No. 1-knife. But, however, we notice that he has turned hostile. P.W. 7 is also one of the witnesses for seizure of M.O. 1 and he has also turned hostile. P.W. 8 is also an eye-witness to the incident who narrates about the assault by accused No. 1 on P.W. 3. He also identifies the knife. P.W. 9 is a witness to the seizure of the blood stained clothes. P.W. 11. is Asst. Sub-Inspector who received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 3/1999. He would refer to the arrest of all the accused, which has already been referred to earlier. He also speaks about the seizure of M.O.1, and the description thereof. According to P.W. 11 the width of the knife is about 3 inches. P.W. 11. is Asst. Sub-Inspector who received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 3/1999. He would refer to the arrest of all the accused, which has already been referred to earlier. He also speaks about the seizure of M.O.1, and the description thereof. According to P.W. 11 the width of the knife is about 3 inches. P.W. 12 took over the investigation from P.W. 11 and he has seized the blood stained clothes as well as the knife. This is all the material evidence, which is let in by the prosecution in support of the case. 7. Indeed, we notice that all the witnesses including P.W. 2-the complainant and the other eye-witnesses have consistently stated before the Court that it is the accused No. 1 who has assaulted P.W. 3 with a knife on the abdomen. Indeed, the injured witness also deposes before the Court that an altercation took place between the accused as well as him as to the delivering of tabalig speech. We are of the view that since all the eye-witnesses as well as the injured witness have referred to the overt act of accused No. 1 that he has assaulted P.W. 3, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that accused No. 1 had assaulted P.W. 3 cannot be faulted. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether it would be a case of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC for which all the accused were charge-sheeted or it could be brought under Section 325 of IPC as is done by the learned Sessions Judge. To ascertain whether the offence can be brought under Section 325 of IPC, Ex. P2-the wound certificate is the material document. Ex. P2 would disclose that the injury was inverted 7 shaped incised wound in the right Hypochandrinm region measuring 3½ cm x ½ to 3/4 cm on probing depth. It is no doubt true that the injury suffered by P.W. 3 is grievous in nature. We also note that P.W. 3 was in the hospital from 9.1.1999 to 30.1.1999. The seizure mahazar would disclose that M.O. No. 1 is a small folding knife and the breadth of its blade is ½ cm and its length is about 6 cm and its tip is not very sharp. We also note that P.W. 3 was in the hospital from 9.1.1999 to 30.1.1999. The seizure mahazar would disclose that M.O. No. 1 is a small folding knife and the breadth of its blade is ½ cm and its length is about 6 cm and its tip is not very sharp. From the appearance thereof the learned Sessions Judge has held that it cannot be classified as deadly weapon. Indeed, we are also of the same opinion inasmuch as if the breadth of its blade is ½ cm, which is less than ¼ of an inch its length is 6 cms., which should be about two inches. We notice that the incident has taken place in. respect of certain religious procedure, which is required to be done, to which P.W. 3 objected and accused No. 1 was enraged and took out a knife and assaulted on P.W. 3 on the abdomen. We are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that this is not a case, which would attract Section 307 of Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted. He was right in convicting the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. 8. We notice that the State is in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence assuming that the offence punishable is one under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. We note that the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused No. 1 for a period of 6 months and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, We are of the view that this case cannot be classified as one, which would attract maximum sentence as envisaged under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. The Imprisonment of six months as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge in the circumstances with reference to the nature of Injuries and with reference to the nature of weapon does not warrant Interference. But, however, we note that the fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge warrants enhancement. We propose to impose a. fine of Rs. 25,000/-, which is payable to the injured P.W. 3. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Crl. A. Nos. 567/2005 & 1479/2004 stand dismissed. (ii) Crl. A. No. 566/2005 is accepted in part. (iii) We direct that while confirming the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, we enhance the fine amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, which is payable to the injured P.W. 3. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Crl. A. Nos. 567/2005 & 1479/2004 stand dismissed. (ii) Crl. A. No. 566/2005 is accepted in part. (iii) We direct that while confirming the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, we enhance the fine amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-, which is payable to the injured P.W. 3. (iv) In default of payment, of the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the accused No. 1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. (v) The fee of amicus curie is fixed at Rs. 7,500/-.