JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals are directed against the conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- on the first three counts, and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- on the last count imposed by the learned Judge on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.308 of 2011 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under: The first informant Bilal is a scrap merchant. On 14-2-2011 there was some quarrel between appellant-Istique on account of assault on Bilal's brother. Though the parties were pacified, it appears that Istique had gone to the police. On 15-2-2011, at about 11:30 a.m., when Bilal was in his scrap shop assisted by his servant Baba Shaikh (PW -7) and was in the process of purchasing scrap from Chinu Waghmare (PW-4), the five appellants are alleged to have come to Bilal's shop. Istique was armed with a sword and the others were armed with sticks. Istique gave blows by sword on Bilal's head and left arm. The others beat him up with sticks. When other persons rushed to the rescue of Bilal, the miscreants ran away. On a report by Bilal, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. Bilal was sent for medical examination and treatment. In the course of investigation the clothes of Bilal were seized. The appellants were arrested. At the instance of appellant-Istique, a sword was seized. His pant having stains of blood was also seized. The articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, "FSL") along with blood samples of the victim as well as the appellants. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Solapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Solapur. 3. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of false implication, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for short, "APP") for the State. With their help I have gone through the evidence on record. PW-1 Dr. Deepak Shinde had found, when he examined the victim Bilal on 15-2-2011 at 11 : 55 a.m., that Bilal had the following four injuries: "1) CLW, 4X1X0.5, right parietal region, 2) Incised Wound, 6X.2, left palm exposing muscle, 3) CLW, 2X.5X.2, left forearm, 4) Abrasion, 6X.2, left thigh." It may be seen that from the account given by Bilal, the first three injuries were attributed to assault by appellant-Istique. As far as the fourth injury - an abrasion - is concerned, it could even have been caused by a fall. Therefore, the injury certificate issued by Dr. Shinde would rule out an assault lasting for fifteen minutes by five persons, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that Dr. Shinde admitted in his cross-examination that even if the injuries were not treated for even fifteen days, there would have been no danger to the life of the victim. Thus, it is clear that a case of simple assault, may be by a sharp weapon, has been turned into a case of attempt to commit murder, as submitted by thc learned counsel for the appellants. 5. PW-2 Bilal is the victim. He states that there was some quarrel between his son and some guys in the locality on 14-2-2011. He states that there was some exchange of words between him and appellant-Istique after the boys were pacified. 5. PW-2 Bilal is the victim. He states that there was some quarrel between his son and some guys in the locality on 14-2-2011. He states that there was some exchange of words between him and appellant-Istique after the boys were pacified. On 15-2-2011, at about 11 : 30 a.m., all the appellants allegedly came to his shop and appellant-Istique inflicted blows by sword on his head, left hand thumb and fingers. The other accused persons allegedly hit Bilal with sticks on the head, elbow and back. In cross-examination the witness stated that this assault lasted for fifteen minutes. It is to be noted here that Bilal did not state about any of the appellants assaulting him on the thigh. Therefore, the injury observed on the thigh is obviously not attributable to the appellants. As observed, the other three injuries are attributable only to appellant- Istique. The witness denied that on the day of the incident the persons who assaulted him had covered their faces by handkerchiefs. He knew Istique and therefore there was no reason for him not to name Tstique properly. The learned counsel for appellant - Istique points out that while in the copy of the FIR which was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the name of appellant - Istique is consistently mentioned as "Imtihaz", in the FIR at Exhibit- 43, which is written in good hand-writing, the name is shown to be "Ishtiaque". The learned counsel submit that this FIR at Exhibit-43 was obviously prepared subsequently since there was no question for the person making a copy of the FIR for being sent to the Magistrate to wrongly mention the name "Imtihaz". He, therefore, submits that this is a clear case of appellant-Istique being wrongly named as an assailant because of some previous disputes with Istique. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants point out that PW-4 Chinu Waghmare, who had come to the shop of Bital for selling some scrap, did not identify any of the miscreants. The learned APP submits that this was because Chinu and her husband had been threatened. All the same, fact remains that Chinu did not identify the miscreants. Chinu stated that the miscreants who had come and assaulted Bilal had covered their faces with handkerchiefs. PW-7 Baba Shaikh is the servant who was assisting Bilal in the shop. The learned APP submits that this was because Chinu and her husband had been threatened. All the same, fact remains that Chinu did not identify the miscreants. Chinu stated that the miscreants who had come and assaulted Bilal had covered their faces with handkerchiefs. PW-7 Baba Shaikh is the servant who was assisting Bilal in the shop. He, too, stated that the miscreants who had assaulted Bilal had covered their faces. The learned APP, however, submitted that since even this witness knew Istique, the witness had identified appellant- Istique to be the person who had assaulted the complainant by means of a sword. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the face of admission of the witness in the cross-examination that the persons had covered their faces with handkerchiefs, the identification of appellant-Istique by this witness would be meaningless. 7. PW-5 Mohamad Muchhale is the witness on the discovery of the sword at the instance of appellant-Istique. Though in the examination-in-chief-this witness did state about Istique disclosing that he would show the place where the sword was kept and leading the police party to the place where the sword was kept, in the cross-examination the witness curiously stated that it was not true that Istique made such a statement in the police station, or that the police recorded such a statement, or that Istique led the police party to the place where the sword was kept. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the memorandum of statement made by appellant-Istique at Exhibit49 and the panchnama of recovery at Exhibit - 50 must be held to have not been proved. The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that even if this panchnama may not have been proved by the evidence of PW-5 Mohamad Muchhale, the evidence of PW-8 PI Anil Patil would be sufficient to prove that a sword was seized at the instance of appellant- Istique. She pointed out that PI Patil had stated that the article sword had been sent to the FSL vide the requisition at Exhibit-58 and the FSL reported vide Exhibit-25 that the sword had stains of blood group "O". The report shows that stains of the same blood group were found on the clothes of victim Bilal, which had been seized vide panchnama at Exhibit-44, and the clothes of appellant-Istique which had been seized vide panchnama at Exhibit-52, proved by PW-6 Ayyub Gajbare. The report shows that stains of the same blood group were found on the clothes of victim Bilal, which had been seized vide panchnama at Exhibit-44, and the clothes of appellant-Istique which had been seized vide panchnama at Exhibit-52, proved by PW-6 Ayyub Gajbare. She submitted that presence of stains of same blood group "O" on the clothes of the victim, the clothes of appellant-Istique, as also the sword seized cannot be a matter of co-incidence. The learned counsel submitted, first, that seizure of the sword from a place accessible to all need not be given any excessive importance. He submitted that presence of stains of blood group "O" on the sword as well as on the clothes of appellant - Istique and the victim could be a coincidence and pointed out that the reports in respect of blood grouping of the victim as well as the accused persons are inconclusive, as could be seen from Exhibits-26 to 31. Therefore, according to him, there is nothing to infer that the victim had blood group "0" or that the blood found on the sword or the clothes of appellant - Istique was that of the victim. 8. It is indeed unfortunate that the prosecution went ahead with trial of the accused persons on the basis of reports of the FSL at Exhibits-26 to 31. The persons whose blood grouping was done were all alive and they are still alive. This blood grouping could have been easily done even in the Civil Hospital. First, there is absolutely no need to burden the FSL with analysis of this type of samples when the Laboratories are not in a position to furnish reports in respect of articles sent to them for months together, stalling the investigation. Secondly, even if the FSL reported an inconclusive finding, the investigating officer could have got the blood grouping done in the local hospital so that the doubts which are now expressed, could have been set at rest. In several cases this Court has found that investigating officers have been routinely sending blood samples of accused persons or others who are alive to the FSL for doing routine blood grouping, which could be done at the local Civil Hospital itself. Apart from putting burden on the over-burdened Laboratories, the inconclusive reports which the Laboratories submit in such cases create doubt about the prosecution story. Apart from putting burden on the over-burdened Laboratories, the inconclusive reports which the Laboratories submit in such cases create doubt about the prosecution story. It is time that the investigating machinery and the higher ups in the Police Department realise this problem and issue proper instructions to all the investigating officers to use their common sense and have the blood grouping done at local levels. The FSL may also think of refusing to accept blood samples of live persons for the purpose of blood grouping. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, first, there is a discrepancy about the name of appellant-Istique in the FIR which was sent to the learned Magistrate. Secondly, it is doubtful whether the victim or the witnesses had any chance of actually seeing the miscreants who had assaulted Bilal, since according to PWs-4 and 7, they had covered their faces with handkerchiefs. Thirdly, the learned counsel submitted that the story of assault given by Bilal is exaggerative when in fact he had received only three injuries, attributable to three blows allegedly given by appellant-Istique. Yet, Bilal had sought to involve all the appellants in the formation of an unlawful assembly for committing his murder. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that this exaggerative account given by Bilal ought to have been rejected by the learned trial Judge as thoroughly unbelievable. The learned counsel next submitted that recovery of the sword from an open place too should have been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge, particularly because PW-5 Mohamad Muchhale, in his cross - examination, denied that any such thing happened. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no warrant for the learned Judge to hold the appellants guilty of any of the offences for which they were charged. 10. The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted, first, that Bilal had at least three injuries, of which one was on the parietal region. She submitted that exaggerations by victims and witnesses need not result in wholesale rejection of their story and it would be for the Court to separate grain from chaff. 10. The learned APP, on the other hand, submitted, first, that Bilal had at least three injuries, of which one was on the parietal region. She submitted that exaggerations by victims and witnesses need not result in wholesale rejection of their story and it would be for the Court to separate grain from chaff. She submitted that recovery of sword at the instance of appellant-Istique, proved by PW-8 PI Patil, when considered along with the fact that the FSL found stains of blood group "O" on the sword as well as on the clothes of the victim and appellant-Istique was sufficient to show that appellant-Istique was, at least, involved in the assault on the victim. In my view, though victim Bilal was exaggerative, as far as the role of appellant-Istique is concerned, it is clearly established not only because of the evidence of PW-2 Bilal and PW-7 Baba Shaikh, but also because of finding of stains of blood group "O" on the sword, seized at the instance of appellant-Istique, his clothes which had been seized vide Exhibit-52 and the finding of blood stains of same group on victim Bilal's clothes. In view of this, appellant-Istique must be held to be the author of the injuries caused to Bilal. 11. However, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the face of evidence of PW-l Dr. Shinde, that even if the injuries were not treated for fifteen days, it would not have mattered, it is clear that a case of simple hurt, caused by means of a sword, blown out of proportion and made out to be a case of attempt to commit murder. It is also clear that Bilal was exaggerative and there was neither any unlawful assembly nor participation of any of the other appellants in the assault. In view of this, only appellant - Istique could be held guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. He is stated to have been injail for over an year. This, in my view, should be sufficient for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 12. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2012 is allowed. The conviction of appellant-Rafique Mohammed Vijapure for the offences for which he has been held guilty is set aside. He is acquitted of all those offences. The Bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. 13. 12. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2012 is allowed. The conviction of appellant-Rafique Mohammed Vijapure for the offences for which he has been held guilty is set aside. He is acquitted of all those offences. The Bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. 13. Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2012 is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and the sentences imposed are set aside. They are acquitted of those offences. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. 14. The conviction of appellant No.1- Istique Ahemed M. Yusuf Shaikh for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and the sentences imposed are also set aside. Instead, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone. Since he is still in custody, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 15. Since appellant-Istique Ahemed M. Yusuf Shaikh is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, his Bail Application No.1377 of 2012 does not survive and it accordingly stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.